828 Media / Todd Lundbohm

If you were encouraged to invest in 828 Media, LLC or a related Todd Lundbohm offering because it was described as safe, secured, income-producing, or likely to generate major tax benefits, it may be worth having the recommendation reviewed.

ChapmanAlbin LLC and Kuglar Law have filed suit alleging that brokers at Dempsey Lord Smith, LLC and Alexander Capital recommended unsuitable and risky 828 Media investments to customers, including sales allegedly tied to strong assurances about large tax benefits. The filing specifically identifies brokers Roger Roemmich and Robert L. Omohundro. Co-counsel in the case includes Kuglar Law and securities attorney Craig H. Kuglar.

Based on ChapmanAlbin’s investigation and other public records, investors may have been introduced to these offerings through brokers, investment advisers, accountants, CPAs, or other trusted financial professionals. If that happened to you, the key question is not just what you bought, but how it was presented and whether the risks, liquidity limits, and tax uncertainty were fully explained before you invested.

How These Offerings May Have Been Pitched

Investments tied to movie financing or entertainment lending can sound attractive because they are often framed as different from the stock market and linked to real projects, tax credits, or hard assets. That kind of story can make an offering seem more stable than it really is. For many investors, the problem is not simply that the investment lost money. It is that the recommendation may have been presented as a good fit when the actual risk, illiquidity, concentration, and uncertainty were much higher than advertised.

ChapmanAlbin’s current lawsuit summary says investors were told they could obtain major tax benefits from 828 Media investments. Tax-oriented pitches can be especially powerful because investors may focus on the projected write-off or credit and spend less time evaluating basic questions like who controls the money, how returns are generated, what happens if a project underperforms, and whether the investment can be sold if circumstances change.

Why the Involvement of Trusted Professionals Matters

Many investors only move forward with a private offering after hearing about it from someone they already trust. That may be a stockbroker, investment adviser, CPA, accountant, or another financial professional. When a trusted professional introduces a deal, investors often assume basic due diligence has already been done and that the recommendation fits their financial goals. If the professional overstated the tax advantages, downplayed the downside, failed to explain conflicts, or recommended too much of the same type of illiquid investment, those facts can matter in a recovery claim.

That is one reason the filed lawsuit matters. ChapmanAlbin and co-counsel Kuglar Law are not simply alleging that the investment disappointed. They are alleging that financial professionals helped place investors into unsuitable and risky 828 Media offerings. For investors, that distinction is important because recovery options often turn on how the product was sold, not just how it later performed.

How ChapmanAlbin Can Help

ChapmanAlbin works with investors who were sold risky investments through brokers and other financial professionals. In this matter, ChapmanAlbin has already filed suit with co-counsel Kuglar Law. If you bought 828 Media, LLC or a related Todd Lundbohm offering through a broker, adviser, accountant, CPA, or another financial professional, ChapmanAlbin can review how the investment was presented, whether the recommendation appears suitable, and what recovery paths may be available.

Common Warning Signs

• You were told the investment came with unusually strong tax benefits and that the opportunity would not last long.
• The risks were discussed vaguely, while the potential upside or tax write-off was emphasized repeatedly.
• You were encouraged to trust the recommendation because it came from a broker, adviser, accountant, or CPA you already knew.
• The investment was private, hard to value, hard to sell, or difficult to understand, but it was still described as appropriate for conservative money.
• A large share of your available assets was placed into one illiquid offering or one narrow strategy tied to entertainment finance.