Robert Hanley-Home Video Studio Franchise Corporation Reviews
Jul 4, 2014
What Hanley will NOT PROVIDE in his Franchise Disclosure Documents with home video studio which he should by USA Franchise Law:
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).
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 franchisor’s financials, including audited balance sheets and income statements for the 3 previous fiscal year.
Mr. Hanley used sociopathic tactics pressuring you with numerous phone calls, getting you to talk to only the successful franchises who were in large population centers. Also, many of whom joined when he was selling Home Video Studio as a business opportunity with equipment he supplied and you bought. . We were told any city with a population of 30,000 or more the franchise would be successful. Ours was 40,000. $5000.00 discounts to Canadian franchisors were offerd by Hanley to get them to buy in.
When we got suckered in 2009 Hanley was desparate for cash as he was being successful suited:
From Justia pdf quote:
Hanley made misrepresentations regarding the business potential and profitability of a Home Video franchise. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12). One of the misrepresentations made by Hanley was that Home Video was licensed to sell and promote franchises in Maryland when, in fact, Home Video had allowed its license to sell and promote franchises in Maryland to lapse on May 21, 2008. (Id. ¶ 9). On June 11, 2008, Plaintiff negotiated and signed a Franchise Agreement with Hanley. (Id. ¶ 12). The Franchise Agreement required Plaintiff to pay $148,505 for, inter alia, home video equipment that was to be delivered by September 2008. (Id.). Hanley provided a portion of the home video equipment to Plaintiff, but failed to deliver the remaining essential home video equipment as promised. (Id. ¶ 15). In addition, Hanley represented that the equipment was worth $75,000, but Plaintiff later learned that the equipment was actually worth $40,000. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 12). Hanley later agreed to refund all amounts paid by Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 17).
Two weeks of training per year in the Indianapolis office (his house-which in his office by the way has a disguised hidden secret door to another part of his house!!!) and in las Vegas where he showboats his awards to impress new suckers to his "Family" franchise with Awards given to those making the most money for him or who are newbees!
There are only two franchises left in Canada out of five taht were known to us.
Robert Hanley-Home Video Studio Franchise Corporation Reviews
What Hanley will NOT PROVIDE in his Franchise Disclosure Documents with home video studio which he should by USA Franchise Law:
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 franchisor’s financials, including audited balance sheets and income statements for the 3 previous fiscal year.
Mr. Hanley used sociopathic tactics pressuring you with numerous phone calls, getting you to talk to only the successful franchises who were in large population centers. Also, many of whom joined when he was selling Home Video Studio as a business opportunity with equipment he supplied and you bought. . We were told any city with a population of 30,000 or more the franchise would be successful. Ours was 40,000. $5000.00 discounts to Canadian franchisors were offerd by Hanley to get them to buy in.
When we got suckered in 2009 Hanley was desparate for cash as he was being successful suited:
From Justia pdf quote:
Hanley made misrepresentations regarding the business potential and profitability of a Home Video franchise. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12). One of the misrepresentations made by Hanley was that Home Video was licensed to sell and promote franchises in Maryland when, in fact, Home Video had allowed its license to sell and promote franchises in Maryland to lapse on May 21, 2008. (Id. ¶ 9). On June 11, 2008, Plaintiff negotiated and signed a Franchise Agreement with Hanley. (Id. ¶ 12). The Franchise Agreement required Plaintiff to pay $148,505 for, inter alia, home video equipment that was to be delivered by September 2008. (Id.). Hanley provided a portion of the home video equipment to Plaintiff, but failed to deliver the remaining essential home video equipment as promised. (Id. ¶ 15). In addition, Hanley represented that the equipment was worth $75,000, but Plaintiff later learned that the equipment was actually worth $40,000. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 12). Hanley later agreed to refund all amounts paid by Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 17).
Two weeks of training per year in the Indianapolis office (his house-which in his office by the way has a disguised hidden secret door to another part of his house!!!) and in las Vegas where he showboats his awards to impress new suckers to his "Family" franchise with Awards given to those making the most money for him or who are newbees!
There are only two franchises left in Canada out of five taht were known to us.
Stay away from this ponzi franchise!!!