Home Video Studio Founder.docx

What Hanley will NOT PROVIDE in his Franchise Disclosures A detailed list of current and projected units in the system, broken down by all 50 states Names and contact information of former and current franchisees in the franchise system (great for speaking with those who know the system best, marketing to franchisees, or conducting research surveys) Historical franchise financial performance figures (critical for building financial models and business plans) Earnings claims tables (for franchisors supplying Item 19s) Franchise litigation and bankruptcy history of his Franchise FDD Items 3-4 provide information on past bankruptcy filings as well as past and/ or current litigation that the franchise may be involved in. FDD Item 19 (when applicable) provides a summary of store-level (unit-level) financial performance FDD Item 20 provides listings of(and contact information for) existing and former franchisees in the system an invaluable tool for research and due diligence. FDD Item 21 reveals the franchisors financials, including audited balance sheets and income statements for the 3 previous fiscal years

10 signs for spotting a sociopath#1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them. They have a "glow" about them that attracts people who typically seek guidance or direction. They often appear to be sexy or have a strong sexual attraction. Not all sexy people are sociopaths, obviously, but watch out for over-the-top sexual appetites and weird fetishes.

#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.

#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very "successful" sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.

#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them. Their high IQs often makes them dangerous. This is why many of the best-known serial killers who successfully evaded law enforcement were sociopaths.

#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don't actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do.

#8) Sociopaths speak poetically. They are master wordsmiths, able to deliver a running "stream of consciousness" monologue that is both intriguing and hypnotic. They are expert storytellers and even poets. As a great example of this in action, watch this interview of Charles Manson on YouTube.

#9) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it! Charles Manson, the sociopathic murderer, is famous for saying, "I've never killed anyone! I don't need to kill anyone! I THINK it! I have it HERE! (Pointing to his temple.) I don't need to live in this physical realm..."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html#ixzz35gvMu1jt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISIONJOSEPH BAK,) Plaintiff,) ) vs.) 1:09-cv-1196-RLY-DML ) HOME VIDEO FRANCHISING) CORPORATION d/b/a HOME VIDEO) STUDIO, HOME VIDEO STUDIO, INC.,) ROBERT HANLEY, and DENISE) HANLEY,) Defendants.)ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFYDefendants, Home Video Franchising Corporation d/b/a Home Video Studios(HVF), Home Video Studio, Inc. (HVS) (collectively Home Video), RobertHanley, and Denise Hanley (collectively Defendants), move to disqualify the counselof plaintiff, Joseph Bak (Plaintiff), pursuant to Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct1.9. The court, having read and reviewed the supporting and opposing briefs, the relevantcase law, and being otherwise duly advised, now finds that Defendants motion should beDENIED.I. Factual BackgroundRobert Hanley (Hanley) is the president and founder of HVS and HVF and is aresident and citizen of Indiana. (Complaint 2). Defendants solicited franchisees on theinternet by offering turnkey opportunities for individuals to start their own Home Video1Dockets.Justia.com

studio. (Id. 8). Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, learned of Defendants franchiseopportunities on Defendants website on May 20, 2008. (Id.). In early June 2008,Plaintiff traveled to Indianapolis, Indiana to speak with Hanley to gather moreinformation regarding Home Video and franchise opportunities. (Id. 9). During themeeting, Hanley made misrepresentations regarding the business potential andprofitability of a Home Video franchise. (Id. 11-12). One of the misrepresentationsmade by Hanley was that Home Video was licensed to sell and promote franchises inMaryland when, in fact, Home Video had allowed its license to sell and promotefranchises in Maryland to lapse on May 21, 2008. (Id. 9).On June 11, 2008, Plaintiff negotiated and signed a Franchise Agreement withHanley. (Id. 12). The Franchise Agreement required Plaintiff to pay $148,505 for, interalia, home video equipment that was to be delivered by September 2008. (Id.). Hanleyprovided a portion of the home video equipment to Plaintiff, but failed to deliver theremaining essential home video equipment as promised. (Id. 15). In addition, Hanleyrepresented that the equipment was worth $75,000, but Plaintiff later learned that theequipment was actually worth $40,000. (Id. 2, 12). Hanley later agreed to refund allamounts paid by Plaintiff. (Id. 17).On September 25, 2009, Plaintiff filed a five-count Complaint against Defendants.On March 22, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiffis currently represented by Barnes & Thornburg (B & T). At least four years prior tothe filing of Plaintiffs suit, Hanley and HVS retained lawyers from Leagre Chandler &2

Millard (LCM) to provide general corporate advice and counsel. (Declaration of DavidB. Millard (Millard Decl.) 4). Shortly after Hanley and HVS retained LCM, manylawyers previously associated with LCM joined B & T (the LCM Attorneys). (MillardDecl. 5). Defendants claim that the prior representation was substantially related toMr. Hanleys Home Video Studio Franchising Business. (Defendants Motion toDisqualify 4).II. Disqualification StandardThe Indiana Rules for Professional Conduct govern the conduct of those practicingbefore this court. S.D. Ind. L. R. 83.5(g). Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9states:A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.Issues are substantially related if they involve the same transaction or dispute, or ifthere is a substantial risk that confidential information given to a lawyer from a formerclient could be used to materially advance the position of that lawyers current client.Comment 3 to Rule 1.9. However, a lawyer who has recurrently handled a type ofproblem for a former client is not precluded from later representing another client in afactually distinct problem of that type even though the subsequent representation involvesa position adverse to the prior client. Comment 2 to Rule 1.9.3

When determining whether disqualification pursuant to Rule 1.9 is warranted, theproper inquiry is whether it could reasonably be said that during the formerrepresentation the attorney might have acquired information related to the subject matterof the subsequent representation. LaSalle Nal. Bank v. Lake County, 703 F.2d 252,255 (7th Cir. 1983) (quoting Cannon v. U.S. Acoustics Corp., 398 F. Supp. 209, 223(N.D. Ill. 1975)). To answer this question, the court uses the three-step substantialrelationship test. Emmis Operating Co. v. CBS Radio, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1118(S.D. Ind. 2007). First, the court must make a factual reconstruction of the scope of theprior legal representation. Id. (quoting Schloetter v. Railoc of Ind., Inc., 546 F.2d 706,710 (7th Cir. 1976)). Second, the court determines whether it is reasonable to infer thatthe confidential information allegedly given would have been given to a lawyerrepresenting a client in those matters. Id. (quoting Schloetter, 546 F.2d at 710). Third,the court determines whether that information is relevant to the issues raised in thelitigation pending against the former client. Id. (quoting Schloetter, 546 F.2d at 710).Relevance is determined in light of the allegations in the complaint and the usefulness ofthe information in establishing those allegations. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gulf OilCorp., 588 F.2d 221, 226 (7th Cir. 1978). If the court determines a substantialrelationship exists, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the attorney receivedconfidential information and should be disqualified. Emmis, 480 F. Supp. 2d at 1118(citations omitted).In cases where the Seventh Circuit has determined disqualification was warranted4

because there was a substantial relationship between former and current representationsby an attorney, the relevance and relationship between the attorneys past representationand current representation has usually been clear. Donohoe v. Consol. Operating & Prod.Corp., 691 F. Supp. 109, 114 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Examples of substantial relationshipsinclude representations involving the same litigation, or involving work on a contractand then litigation arising from that contract or involving work in obtaining a patentfollowed by litigation challenging that patent. Id. at 114-115 (internal citations omitted).III. DiscussionThe first step in the substantial relationship test is to make a factualreconstruction of the scope of the prior legal representation. Emmis, 480 F. Supp. 2d at1118 (quoting Schloetter, 546 F.2d at 710). In the instant case, the allegations containedin the Complaint all arise from the Franchise Agreement between Plaintiff, Hanley, andHVF. Defendants claim that the work done for them by the LCM Attorneys wassubstantially related to the franchising business, but they do not support this allegationwith any evidence. Plaintiff, however, submitted evidence demonstrating that HVF didnot even exist at the time the LCM Attorneys represented Hanley and HVS. (MillardDecl. 4-10; see also Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Disqualify at Exhibit E). Thescope of the prior legal representation included matters relating to non-disclosureagreements, vendor agreements, non-competition agreements, and trademark issues.(Millard Decl. 10). The LCM Attorneys did recommend to Robert Hanley and HVSthat HVS should register as a franchise, but Hanley and HVS specifically declined any5

opportunity to pursue that course of action with any LCM Attorneys. (Millard Decl. 10f). Furthermore, evidence submitted by Plaintiff demonstrates that no LCM Attorneyperformed any work relating to the franchising of HVS, the creation or operation of HVF,or the creation of any part of the Franchise Agreement.The second step of the substantial relationship test is difficult to apply in theinstant case because the Defendants do not allege any specific confidential informationthat would have been given to a lawyer representing them. Regardless, it is clear from thefactual record that any confidential information previously given to any LCM Attorneyswould be irrelevant to the instant case. This action arises from the Franchise Agreement.HVF did not exist at the time Defendants retained the LCM Attorneys, and Defendantsspecifically refused to allow those lawyers to work on registering HVS as a franchise.Therefore, Defendants claim does not pass the substantial relationship test. As such,Defendants motion to disqualify must be denied.IV. ConclusionFor the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES Defendants Motion toDisqualify (Docket # 24).SO ORDERED this 12th day of August 2010.RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana6__________________________________RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Electronic Copies To:Edward Timothy Delaney BARNES & THORNBURG LLP tdelaney@btlaw.comBart A. Karwath BARNES & THORNBURG LLP bart.karwath@btlaw.comDonald Robert Lundberg BARNES & THORNBURG LLP donald.lundberg@btlaw.comJ. David Young LAW OFFICE OF J. DAVID YOUNG jdyjd@aol.com

STATE OF CALIFORNIABUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCYDEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONSTO: Home Video Franchise Corporation dba Home Video StudioRobert Hanley 8148 Raven Rock Drive Indianapolis, IN 46256CITATION & DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER(For violation of section 31110 of the Corporations Code)The California Corporations Commissioner (Commissioner) finds that:1. Home Video Franchise Corporation dba Home Video Studio (HVS) is a New Jerseycorporation, incorporated on March 2, 2006. Its business address is 8148 Raven Rock Drive,Indianapolis, Indiana, 46256.2. Mr. Robert Hanley, a natural person and resident of Indiana, is the principal controlperson of HVS. HVS offers and sells franchises allowing franchisees to operate and market a homebusiness that provides video production, editing, duplication, DVD conversion, tape repair andrelated services to the general public and local businesses.3. HVS was registered to offer or sell franchises in California for three distinct periods:(1) from October 3, 2006 to April 20, 2007; (2) April 25, 2007 to April 20, 2008; and, (3) March 30,2008 to April 20, 2009.4. The Commissioner is informed and believes that the franchisor, HVS and Hanley soldsix franchises in the State of California during the aforementioned registration periods.-1-DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER

5. However, on April 19, 2010, HVS and Hanley sold a franchise to a California residentoutside of any relevant registration period.Based upon the foregoing findings, the California Corporations Commissioner is of theopinion that Mr. Robert Hanley and Home Video Franchising Corporation dba Home Video Studiooffered and sold at least one franchise in California that was subject to registration under theFranchise Investment Law without the offers and/or sales first being registered, in violation ofCorporations Code section 31110.ORDER1. Pursuant to section 31402 of the Corporations Code, Mr. Robert Hanley and HomeVideo Franchising Corporation dba Home Video Studio are hereby ordered to desist and refrain fromthe further offer or sale of any and all franchises in the state of California, including but not limited tofranchises in Home Video Studios, unless and until the offers of sale have been duly registered underthe Franchise Investment Law, or are exempt.ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY2. Pursuant to section 31406 of the Corporations Code, Mr. Robert Hanley and HomeVideo Franchising Corporation dba Home Video Studio, are hereby jointly and severally assessedand ordered to pay an administrative penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) within 30days of the finality of this order. If within sixty (60) days from the receipt of this citation Mr. RobertHanley and Home Video Franchising Corporation dba Home Video Studio fail to notify thecommissioner that they intend to request a hearing as described in subd. (d) of sec. 31406, the citationshall be deemed final. Subdivision (d) of 31406 provides that any hearing requested under sec.31406 shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with section 11500) of Part 1of Division 3 of Title 2 of the California Govt. Code.-2-DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER

ANCILLIARY RELIEF3. Pursuant to section 31408 of the Corporations Code, Mr. Robert Hanley and HomeVideo Franchising Corporation dba Home Video Studio are hereby ordered to deliver a Notice ofViolation (pursuant to California Corporations Code sec. 31303 and California Code of Regulations,Title 10, sec.s 310.303 and 310.304) to each and every California resident sold a franchise outside arelevant registration period. An Application for Approval as to form of the Notice of Violation shallbe submitted to the Commissioner within 30 days of the finality of this Order and delivered to thefranchisee(s) within 30 days after the Commissioner approves the Notice.4. Additionally, pursuant to section 31408 of the Corporations Code, the Commissionerhereby orders Robert Hanley to attend remedial education from the International FranchiseAssociation equal to at least 150 Educational Credits (whether on-line or in-person) within 12 monthsof the finality of this order. Proof of completion of the remedial education must be presented to theCommissioner within that time.5. At the appropriate time, the Commissioner, pursuant to section 31408 of theCorporations Code, will seek to recover costs, which may include reasonable attorneys fees andinvestigative costs, at the discretion of an administrative law judge.This Order is necessary, in the public interest, for the protection of investors and franchiseesand consistent with the purposes, policies and provisions of the Franchise Investment Law.Dated: May 18, 2012 JAN LYNN OWENSacramento, CA California Corporations CommissionerBy:_______________________________Alan S. Weinger Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement-3-DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER

Scam AlertHow do you spot a franchise scam? February 3, 2002|Back before California started the move to regulate the offering of franchises during the 1960s, and long before the Federal Trade Commission published its franchise rule at the end of the 1970s, buying a franchise could be as risky as putting your 401(k) into Enron or Talk magazine. Before disclosure, the franchise industry suffered from companies that had lots of hype, little substance and an absence of management talent. What they did have were great salespeople.Some of the franchise offerings back in the '50s, '60s and '70s were for companies that had never opened a single unit before selling franchises. Some had management that had never been in the business but did have experience in bankruptcies, litigation and problems with regulators. Some of the companies were so weak financially that they needed the proceeds from franchise sales to meet payroll or to pay for the franchise ads the prospects responded to. There were even stories of franchisors whose furniture was being repossessed in one room while the prospective franchisee was in the other. Just because the government regulates something, though, doesn't mean things are always better. While not common, there are still franchise offerings today that are such poor opportunities, they would have fit in nicely with the other bandits back then.How is that possible? In part, due to the ease of developing a franchise system, the lack of consistency in franchise regulations and to the way franchises are sold. But the primary reason franchise scams still exist today is there are still individuals who don't do their homework, and end up investing in these "opportunities." They allow the bad opportunities to remain in business.There's no single indicator of a franchise scam, and you need to weigh all the indicators in making your assessment. Just remember, hundreds of superior franchise opportunities are available today, and there's absolutely

no reason to settle for less than the best opportunity in your investment range. There's little you can do about the ease of development or the inconsistency of regulations, but you can protect yourself by doing your homework.The disclosure document is a wonderful tool for prospective franchisees to have. At your first personal meeting with a franchisor, that franchisor is required to provide you with one. Some franchisors will even mail you a disclosure document; others post them on their Web sites.Even before you get to the point of contacting a franchisor, you can get a sense of whether their opportunity is for real. Go online and research news stories about the company and the industry. If the company is public, look at the information available from their SEC filings. Visit their Web site and get information about their consumer offering as well as their franchise offering. Learn what you can about their management and thoroughly research their background. Compare the company to its competition-both franchised and non-franchised. Locate some of their stores and speak to existing franchisees. Then, when you're satisfied, contact the company.When you first contact the company, ask them about the process they use in selecting franchisees. If you get the sense that they don't select franchisees but are in the business of selling franchises, that's your first indication the franchise is risky.Remember, a franchise system is only as strong as its brand, and that brand rests to a great extent on how well the other franchisees in the system perform. If the franchisor lets anyone who has money in the system and does not have selection criteria, then your investment will probably be at risk.If the company is willing to "sell" you a franchise and doesn't require you to visit with them at their company headquarters so you can perform a thorough evaluation of them and they can perform a thorough evaluation of you, that's another sign of a poor franchise system. If the salesperson you're talking with isn't an employee but an outside sales broker, that's even a stronger indication. Remember, unless you buy the franchise, the broker doesn't earn any money. And, since he isn't an employee of the franchise system, he doesn't risk much more than the chance to earn a future commission check if he recruits franchisees destined for failure.

When you visit the franchisor's headquarters, meet as many of the franchise support people as you can. Assess whether they have the experience to do their jobs. Make sure they're required to provide you with the level of support you expect. Take a look at the condition of their offices. Do you get the feeling of success or impending doom? Do all the company's resources seem to go into marble and brass, or does the company seem to be investing in computers, personnel, training programs and other components of support?Be prepared to thoroughly analyze your disclosure document. If you're still interested after you read the company's information, engage a qualified franchise attorney, consultant or accountant to help you in conducting your due diligence. Franchise salespeople or brokers work for the franchisor. No matter how friendly or professional they may be, you shouldn't rely solely on their advice.Scam AlertThe Red Flags February 3, 2002|4To determine whether a franchise is legitimate or a scam, answer the following questions:Does the company have experience in the business being offered? I'm not talking about a related business, but the exact business. If the company has successfully been operating 4,000-square-foot stores, but the franchise opportunity is only for 1,000-square-foot stores, it's not the same business, no matter what they say. The same works in reverse-bigger is not always better. If you plan to open your franchises in Boston, but the only experience the company has is in Texas, it's not necessarily the same either. Have they done the necessary research to determine if the concept will work in Boston, or are you going to be their cold weather guinea pig?

Does management have a history of success? Does the franchise management know how to operate your business successfully? If not, what type of support are you likely to get? How frequently have they changed jobs? How well are their former companies doing? If they seem to move just before the sheriff or process server arrives, that's not a good sign. If they've worked with other franchisors, call franchisees of those systems and find out how well this management did in the past. A mix of executives with experience in the business and as successful franchisors is a great benefit to franchisees.What is the financial condition of the company? Your investment will probably be significant. In some franchises, between debt and equity, your investment may exceed seven figures. Will you have more skin in the game than the franchisor does? Do they have a history of profitability? Are they earning their revenue from royalties and other continuing sources of revenue, or are they relying on the sale of the next franchise to make payroll? Even new franchisors need to have financial resources to meet their commitments.Are you getting value for your money? Sure, if it's a well-known, established brand and the franchisees in the system are doing well, although this means you'll probably have to pay a sizeable franchise fee. But, if it's a new franchise system and your training lasts only a few days, are you paying more than it's worth? Paying $25,000 or more for a franchise fee when you're only getting one week of training from a new franchisor with limited experience, simply because they have a great brochure, doesn't make sense. Ask the other franchisees in the system if they got value for their money. Keep in mind, though, that franchisees new to the system may not even know yet.What's the franchisor's litigation or regulatory history? Franchisors must disclose relevant litigation. Sometimes litigation is good. Any franchisor that enforces system standards will occasionally need to sue its franchisees. If they're able to still maintain a good relationship with their other franchisees, that type of litigation is an indication of a strong and responsible franchisor.However, if there are pages upon pages of lawsuits from franchisees listed in the disclosure documents, that's not a good sign. You need to

understand the basis for the lawsuits and make a decision based upon the facts. Your attorney can help you analyze the franchise litigation.Is the franchise offered only in the non-registration states? Only 12 states review franchise documents and require franchisors to register their offering before getting permission to offer franchises in their state. In the rest of the United States, no regulator ever sees the franchise offering. Sometimes companies don't offer franchises in the registration states simply because those states don't fit into their geographic strategy. But, if a franchisor is offering franchises all over the United States except for the registration states, that may indicate their franchise wouldn't meet the requirements. Be very careful when you come upon opportunities that go out of their way to avoid the registration states. For more information as well as a complete list of franchise registration states, click here.Finally, I have to admit some bias toward membership in the International Franchise Association, since I'm on the IFA's Board of Directors; was chairman of the professional arm of the association, the Supplier Forum, and have been active in the organization for more than 15 years. While active membership in the IFA doesn't guarantee a franchisor is a worthwhile investment, it's a strong indicator of a responsible franchise system. Active IFA members have access to training programs, networking opportunities and meetings in which they can exchange best practices with other franchisors.These are just a few of the questions you need to assess in determining whether the franchise you're interested in is a scam. Your outside advisors can help you put aside your entrepreneurial eagnerness to get into the game and assist you in conducting a proper due diligence. Don't get into a franchise unless you have the assistance of a qualified expert. The franchise salesperson who has befriended you has the advantage of having been through the selling process hundreds of times. This is likely to be your first experience.Michael H. Seid is managing director of Michael H. Seid & Associates, a West Hartford, Connecticut- and Troy, Michigan-based management consulting firm specializing in the franchise industry. Seid recently co- wroteFranchising for Dummies(IDG Books) with Wendy's founder, the late Dave Thomas.

BBB BUSINESS REVIEWTHIS BUSINESS IS NOT BBB ACCREDITEDHome Video Studio, Inc. Fax: (317) 841-7756 View Additional Phone NumbersBBB AccreditationThis business is not BBB accredited.Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.Reason for RatingBBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.Factors that raised the rating for Home Video Studio, Inc. include:Length of time business has been operating. No complaints filed with BBB. BBB has sufficient background information on this business.

CastCredited cast:Walter Baziak... Lucas StoneRon Blackstone... SheriffSteve Russell... Hunter Tweed See full cast Edit StorylineAdd Full Plot | Add SynopsisTaglines: Time Doesn't Heal Every WoundParents Guide: Add content advisory for parents Edit DetailsCountry: USA Language: English Release Date: 1 May 1991 (Greece) See more Filming Locations: Indianapolis, Indiana, USABox Office

Budget: $150,000 (estimated) See more Company CreditsProduction Co: New Era Pictures International See more Show detailed company contact information on IMDbPro Technical SpecsRuntime: 89 min Color: Color Aspect Ratio: 1.33 : 1 See full technical specs Scam AlertHow do you spot a franchise scam? February 3, 2002|Back before California started the move to regulate the offering of franchises during the 1960s, and long before the Federal Trade Commission published its franchise rule at the end of the 1970s, buying a franchise could be as risky as putting your 401(k) into Enron or Talk magazine. Before disclosure, the franchise industry suffered from companies that had lots of hype, little substance and an absence of management talent. What they did have were great salespeople.Some of the franchise offerings back in the '50s, '60s and '70s were for companies that had never opened a single unit before selling franchises. Some had management that had never been in the business but did have experience in bankruptcies, litigation and problems with regulators. Some of the companies were so weak financially that they needed the proceeds from franchise sales to meet payroll or to pay for the franchise ads the prospects responded to. There were even stories of franchisors whose furniture was being repossessed in one room while the prospective franchisee was in the other. Just because the government regulates something, though, doesn't mean things are always better. While not common, there are still franchise offerings today that are such poor opportunities, they would have fit in nicely with the other bandits back then.How is that possible? In part, due to the ease of developing a franchise system, the lack of consistency in franchise regulations and to the way franchises are sold. But the primary reason franchise scams still exist today is there are still individuals who don't do their homework, and end up investing in these "opportunities." They allow the bad opportunities to remain in business.There's no single indicator of a franchise scam, and you need to weigh all the indicators in making your assessment. Just remember, hundreds of superior franchise opportunities are available today, and there's absolutely

no reason to settle for less than the best opportunity in your investment range. There's little you can do about the ease of development or the inconsistency of regulations, but you can protect yourself by doing your homework.The disclosure document is a wonderful tool for prospective franchisees to have. At your first personal meeting with a franchisor, that franchisor is required to provide you with one. Some franchisors will even mail you a disclosure document; others post them on their Web sites.Even before you get to the point of contacting a franchisor, you can get a sense of whether their opportunity is for real. Go online and research news stories about the company and the industry. If the company is public, look at the information available from their SEC filings. Visit their Web site and get information about their consumer offering as well as their franchise offering. Learn what you can about their management and thoroughly research their background. Compare the company to its competition-both franchised and non-franchised. Locate some of their stores and speak to existing franchisees. Then, when you're satisfied, contact the company.When you first contact the company, ask them about the process they use in selecting franchisees. If you get the sense that they don't select franchisees but are in the business of selling franchises, that's your first indication the franchise is risky.Remember, a franchise system is only as strong as its brand, and that brand rests to a great extent on how well the other franchisees in the system perform. If the franchisor lets anyone who has money in the system and does not have selection criteria, then your investment will probably be at risk.If the company is willing to "sell" you a franchise and doesn't require you to visit with them at their company headquarters so you can perform a thorough evaluation of them and they can perform a thorough evaluation of you, that's another sign of a poor franchise system. If the salesperson you're talking with isn't an employee but an outside sales broker, that's even a stronger indication. Remember, unless you buy the franchise, the broker doesn't earn any money. And, since he isn't an employee of the franchise system, he doesn't risk much more than the chance to earn a future commission check if he recruits franchisees destined for failure.

When you visit the franchisor's headquarters, meet as many of the franchise support people as you can. Assess whether they have the experience to do their jobs. Make sure they're required to provide you with the level of support you expect. Take a look at the condition of their offices. Do you get the feeling of success or impending doom? Do all the company's resources seem to go into marble and brass, or does the company seem to be investing in computers, personnel, training programs and other components of support?Be prepared to thoroughly analyze your disclosure document. If you're still interested after you read the company's information, engage a qualified franchise attorney, consultant or accountant to help you in conducting your due diligence. Franchise salespeople or brokers work for the franchisor. No matter how friendly or professional they may be, you shouldn't rely solely on their advice.Scam AlertThe Red Flags February 3, 2002|4To determine whether a franchise is legitimate or a scam, answer the following questions:Does the company have experience in the business being offered? I'm not talking about a related business, but the exact business. If the company has successfully been operating 4,000-square-foot stores, but the franchise opportunity is only for 1,000-square-foot stores, it's not the same business, no matter what they say. The same works in reverse-bigger is not always better. If you plan to open your franchises in Boston, but the only experience the company has is in Texas, it's not necessarily the same either. Have they done the necessary research to determine if the concept will work in Boston, or are you going to be their cold weather guinea pig?

Does management have a history of success? Does the franchise management know how to operate your business successfully? If not, what type of support are you likely to get? How frequently have they changed jobs? How well are their former companies doing? If they seem to move just before the sheriff or process server arrives, that's not a good sign. If they've worked with other franchisors, call franchisees of those systems and find out how well this management did in the past. A mix of executives with experience in the business and as successful franchisors is a great benefit to franchisees.What is the financial condition of the company? Your investment will probably be significant. In some franchises, between debt and equity, your investment may exceed seven figures. Will you have more skin in the game than the franchisor does? Do they have a history of profitability? Are they earning their revenue from royalties and other continuing sources of revenue, or are they relying on the sale of the next franchise to make payroll? Even new franchisors need to have financial resources to meet their commitments.Are you getting value for your money? Sure, if it's a well-known, established brand and the franchisees in the system are doing well, although this means you'll probably have to pay a sizeable franchise fee. But, if it's a new franchise system and your training lasts only a few days, are you paying more than it's worth? Paying $25,000 or more for a franchise fee when you're only getting one week of training from a new franchisor with limited experience, simply because they have a great brochure, doesn't make sense. Ask the other franchisees in the system if they got value for their money. Keep in mind, though, that franchisees new to the system may not even know yet.What's the franchisor's litigation or regulatory history? Franchisors must disclose relevant litigation. Sometimes litigation is good. Any franchisor that enforces system standards will occasionally need to sue its franchisees. If they're able to still maintain a good relationship with their other franchisees, that type of litigation is an indication of a strong and responsible franchisor.However, if there are pages upon pages of lawsuits from franchisees listed in the disclosure documents, that's not a good sign. You need to

understand the basis for the lawsuits and make a decision based upon the facts. Your attorney can help you analyze the franchise litigation.Is the franchise offered only in the non-registration states? Only 12 states review franchise documents and require franchisors to register their offering before getting permission to offer franchises in their state. In the rest of the United States, no regulator ever sees the franchise offering. Sometimes companies don't offer franchises in the registration states simply because those states don't fit into their geographic strategy. But, if a franchisor is offering franchises all over the United States except for the registration states, that may indicate their franchise wouldn't meet the requirements. Be very careful when you come upon opportunities that go out of their way to avoid the registration states. For more information as well as a complete list of franchise registration states, click here.Finally, I have to admit some bias toward membership in the International Franchise Association, since I'm on the IFA's Board of Directors; was chairman of the professional arm of the association, the Supplier Forum, and have been active in the organization for more than 15 years. While active membership in the IFA doesn't guarantee a franchisor is a worthwhile investment, it's a strong indicator of a responsible franchise system. Active IFA members have access to training programs, networking opportunities and meetings in which they can exchange best practices with other franchisors.These are just a few of the questions you need to assess in determining whether the franchise you're interested in is a scam. Your outside advisors can help you put aside your entrepreneurial eagnerness to get into the game and assist you in conducting a proper due diligence. Don't get into a franchise unless you have the assistance of a qualified expert. The franchise salesperson who has befriended you has the advantage of having been through the selling process hundreds of times. This is likely to be your first experience.Michael H. Seid is managing director of Michael H. Seid & Associates, a West Hartford, Connecticut- and Troy, Michigan-based management consulting firm specializing in the franchise industry. Seid recently co- wroteFranchising for Dummies(IDG Books) with Wendy's founder, the late Dave Thomas.

BBB BUSINESS REVIEWTHIS BUSINESS IS NOT BBB ACCREDITEDHome Video Studio, Inc. Fax: (317) 841-7756 View Additional Phone NumbersBBB AccreditationThis business is not BBB accredited.Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.Reason for RatingBBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.Factors that raised the rating for Home Video Studio, Inc. include:Length of time business has been operating. No complaints filed with BBB. BBB has sufficient background information on this business.

CastCredited cast:Walter Baziak... Lucas StoneRon Blackstone... SheriffSteve Russell... Hunter Tweed See full cast Edit StorylineAdd Full Plot | Add SynopsisTaglines: Time Doesn't Heal Every WoundParents Guide: Add content advisory for parents Edit DetailsCountry: USA Language: English Release Date: 1 May 1991 (Greece) See more Filming Locations: Indianapolis, Indiana, USABox Office

Budget: $150,000 (estimated) See more Company CreditsProduction Co: New Era Pictures International See more Show detailed company contact information on IMDbPro Technical SpecsRuntime: 89 min Color: Color Aspect Ratio: 1.33 : 1 See full technical specs