Can Yale Entertainment’s model be a glossy Ponzi?

General
1

Same old cash-in, cash-out story. More than once they told point-blank that they’ve got to bring in fresh money so they can square up some of the last notes. When the next investor wired funds, that cash seemed to be used to repay an earlier lender. There are dozens of overlapping loans and merchant-cash advances stacked on top of one another—some maturing in weeks, not years.

Yes, the movies exist; they’re on IMDb and even screen at festivals. But if every dollar that comes in is already earmarked to plug yesterday’s hole, the production slate can become a façade that keeps the fundraising wheel turning.

Red flags I’ve spotted so far

  1. Constant refinancing, sometimes rolling principal plus big fees every 60-90 days.
  2. UCC filings show a crowd of lenders.
  3. Personal guarantees mixed with corporate debt—hinting at blurred lines between company cash and the principals’ pockets.

If new investor money is mainly used to pay off earlier investors, with no sustainable revenue covering the gap, aren’t we edging into Ponzi-scheme territory? I’d like to hear from anyone who was told their funds would “bridge” payments to a prior creditor, or who saw repeated rollovers on identical collateral.

Not accusing, just connecting dots. Would appreciate others’ experiences that support—or debunk—this concern.

2

Hey you’re not the only one who says this.

Gilbert said she began witnessing “amounts of money that were … spent mysteriously.” An individual who worked alongside Yale as a producer — first, as an independent contractor, and then inside the company — echoed Gilbert’s observation that money would exit and reenter company accounts without explanation. “Most likely, they were just paying off some other debt before some other money came in, or something like that,” they speculated, noting that they kept their observations on Yale close to the vest in an effort to protect their job.

“Over and over, money was lost with no accountability”

"…actually taking money from investors to pay back other investors, despite the fact they said they would do otherwise. Was this a Ponzi scheme? Was fraud committed? And just where the hell’s the money?”

3

" A company in default on one obligation is not barred from guaranteeing a separate obligation"

Is Beckerman saying that they were already in default when they were making more guaruntees?

Were any creditors told in their agreements they were not in default?

“The purpose of raising funds from new investors was communicated to those investors.” =Beckerman

WHO WAS TOLD THEIR MONEY WAS USED TO PAY BACK OLD INVESTORS AND TO GIVE BECKERMAN AND LEVINE 50k to 100k PER MONTH in owners draw?

4

I was specifically told they were not in default (when they were). This is textbook fraud.