EXCLUSIVE: The media fund is raising money for a number of projects including 28K, written by Paul Abbott. Showtime USA is currently remaking Abbott’s Channel 4 series Shameless, while Universal turned his BBC series State of Play into the Russell Crowe movie. The urban thriller starts filming in October. Ultimate aims to establish a string of tax-effective Enterprise Investment Scheme companies. Each EIS will invest up to £2 million ($3 million) in a spread of film, TV, music, internet and theatre start-ups. For example, distributor Route One plans to release six movies and up to 40 DVDs a year. The idea is to spread the investor’s risk, while still giving him a 20% tax break.
If successful, the rolling media fund aims to raise £20 million each year.
Oliver Rothschild, founder of Buchler Rothschild Investments, is the chairman. Vice-chairman is Martin Carr, an independent feature producer who has worked with Danny Boyle in the past. Other board members include veteran director Piers Haggard, whose credits include the Beeb’s Pennies From Heaven.
This is not the first time Carr has gone down the EIS route. He used the EIS to fund gangland drama Clubbed. The film was released theatrically in the UK and France in 2009 and sold to 20 other territories on DVD. Unusually for a privately-financed EIS film, Clubbed also sold to BSkyB. But investors still not out yet. Sales agent AV Pictures has just closed a US sale. Carr and his partner Neil Thompson have pledged half their net profits from 28K and Top Shelf, another project on the slate, to help them recoup.

can someone explain how EIS companies work and how they can use their investments as a tax break?
It’s pretty simple stuff. Any UK taxpayer who invests in the creation of an EIS company qualifies for income tax relief of 20% of their investment in the year they acquire the shares. So if they invest £100,000, and qualify for relief in the relevant tax year, they get £20,000 back from HMRC. There are of course a number of conditions – the main ones being that the EIS company must engage in a qualifying trade (which at the moment includes film production), the company must carry on its trade within the UK, and the investor must be previously unconnected with the company.
Additionally, gains made by an investor on any disposal of shares after three years (assuming that the company continues to qualify as an EIS) are not chargeable to Capital Gains Tax; if the shares are sold at a loss, the appropriate loss can be set against other taxable income.
And basically that’s it, though this note is by no means comprehensive!
If this fund is run like the Clubbed EIS, this will be another disaster. That was a write off.
What the article does not make clear is that most of the proposed investments are Formosa Films linked (eg Route One, which did the disastrous release for Clubbed, amateur hour). There is an “advisory board” but whats the point if the money is all going into Formosa companies
In response to Mr Parker’s comment I feel it pertinent to point out a few facts.
The Clubbed EIS whilst not performing as well as some expected is in no way a write off. The commercial strategy for Clubbed was never aimed at a large cinema release as this is expensive and would very likely have been unprofitable for this type of film. The aim was to generate profitable revenue from DVD sales and downloads. As is correctly mentioned in the article investors are not out and are thus being allocated 60% of income that continues to flow in from DVD sales and particularly downloads and from the recently concluded US deal. Furthermore and as also mentioned in the article the Formosa Film directors gave preferential shares in their next two feature films to the Clubbed investors in reparation. The Formosa Films company has an unblemished reputation in the industry for looking after their investors in an unprecedented way and always communicating the truth about the business which is more than I can say for a lot of the so called blue chip companies with whole departments devoted to PR.
As a fund the overriding priority are the investors. This is why Formosa Films were selected because of the complete transparency of their business model and a structure that places the investors in the primary recoupment position and does not exclude them from key territories or media. Producer’s fees are not taken as a percentage of budget, key territories are not pre-sold and banks and distributors are not given any preferential share of revenues. In fact this basic model is a pre-requisite for any company seeking investment from the fund.
We would not have chosen them for the fund unless we believed in their business plan which provides the opportunity for great returns in their future projects. The distribution company is in fact a brand new venture with an extremely experienced team at the helm who know the business very well especially in the field of new media and digital. They are extremely well placed therefore to take advantage of the new horizons in the media world. The track record of this team speaks for itself if Mr Parker would care to read the IM for the fund.
The UMF is looking at every Media EIS out there and the companies in the IM are just the beginning of a portfolio which will be in the region of twenty companies when at full capacity. Formosa Films were for us, the best film investment group of companies that offered small running costs and potential returns in their above average quality projects with very competitive budgets. We do not take these matters lightly as our clients expect solid returns over a decent time period and that is what we base our assumptions on. Our reputations also depend on it.
The EIS fund model relies on a spread of investments across a range of companies therefore the greater the mix the better as this allows investors to spread their risk. This also allows investors to participate in every stage of the value chain all the way from development through production to distribution across a range of media as opposed to purely production which is the case in the majority of film investments.
I just came across this post via Google as I was looking into Formosa Films new EIS share offer for 28K for a client, which has raised £1,083,314 so far under the EIS rules according to Companies House. As part of my analysis I downloaded the latest accounts to April 2010, which show they have spent £363,000 on overheads/ staff/ director fees before the film has even started production. so not much left to go towards the film!
So if the first/only Formosa EIS film Clubbed tanked and the second has spent over 1/3 of its capital on general costs, how can the statement “Formosa Films were for us, the best film investment group of companies that offered small running costs and potential returns in their above average quality projects with very competitive budgets” be justified??
I’m no expert on film finance, but maybe the Formosa business model is wrong, and it makes sense to pre-sell the film to validate the projects commercial potential in the market? There’s no real track record that I can see in the management.
I’d be interested to know the net asset value per share in the Clubbed EIS – any offers? As of June 2009 the cummulative loss being carried per £1 share is £1.19. I’m sure there’s income in the year to June 2010, so aside from the EIS tax reliefs, worth 10p per share now? 20p?
just had a look at the prospectus for Ultimate Media Fund. One of the companies in the fund is investment in Roger Corman’s films. WHAT! does that even qualify for EIS tax relief? Is it right as the NHS/Schools etc are cut back that the UK tax payer is on the line to pay out up to 60% in EIS + loss relief to make tripe?
@ T Marley. You have completely missed the point about Roger Corman. His model is all about commercial profit, much of what he makes is very low budget and thus the production values are low. While not appealing to the mass market sufficient revenue is generated over and above the production costs. In these times of austerity one could easily argue that any company that makes a profit and provides employment is a good thing. Not to mention the valuable experience, just look at some of the household names who cut their teeth courtesy of Mr Corman.
I think the point made by “T Marley” is that as the country is heading down the swany, we should focus any investment tax breaks on industry sectors in the UK that are worthwhile, not backing trash movies
Also, if Roger Corman’s business model is so good, why does he need the UK tax payer to subsidise it??