(9)	Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Payroll Tax Penalties – As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company’s liabilities include a payable to the Internal Revenue Service in the amount of $117,824 and $123,248, respectively, associated with payroll tax liabilities for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2008, along with associated penalties and interest for late payment. The Company has entered into an installment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service in the amount of $1,000 per month.

Contingencies

The Company’s legal proceedings are as follows:

Transcontinental Printing v. Platinum. On or about July 2, 2009, Transcontinental Printing, a New York corporation, filed suit against the Company in Superior Court, County of Los Angeles (Case No. SC103801) alleging that the Company failed to pay for certain goods and services provided by Transcontinental in the total amount of $106,593. The Company settled the suit agreeing to pay $92,000 and has paid that amount as of June 30, 2011.

Rustemagic v. Rosenberg & Platinum Studios. On or about June 30, 2009, Ervin Rustemagic filed suit against the Company and its President, Scott Rosenberg, in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC416936) alleging that the Company (and Mr. Rosenberg) breached an agreement with Mr. Rustemagic thereby causing damages totaling $125,000. The matter was settled through arbitration in April, 2011 with only minimal liability to the Company. Under the settlement agreement, the Company has guaranteed additional payments due by Scott Rosenberg in the amount of $77,000, which payments have not been made and litigation has subsequently been reinstituted.

Harrison Kordestani v. Platinum. Harrison Kordestani was a principal of Arclight Films, with whom the Company had entered into a film slate agreement. One of the properties that had been subject to the slate agreement was “Dead of Night.” Arclight fired Mr. Kordestani and subsequently released Dead of Night from the slate agreement. In late January 2009, Mr. Krodestani had an attorney contact the Company as well as its new partners who were on the verge of closing the financing for the “Dead of Night.” Mr. Kordestani, through his counsel, claimed he was entitled to reimbursement for certain monies invested in the film while it had been subject to the Arclight slate agreement. Mr. Krodestani’s claim was wholly without merit and an attempt to force an unwarranted settlement because he knew we were about to close a deal. We responded immediately through outside counsel and asserted that he was engaging in extortion and the company would pursue him vigorously if he continued to try and interfere with a deal. The company has not heard anything further from Mr. Kordestani but will vigorously defend any suit that Mr. Kordestani attempts to bring. The Company has not reserved any payable for this proceeding.

Douglass Emmet v. Platinum Studios On August 20, 2009, Douglas Emmet 1995, LLC filed an Unlawful Detainer action against the Company with regard to the office space previously occupied by the Company. The suit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, (Case No. SC104504) and alleged that the Company had failed to make certain lease payments to the Plaintiff and was, therefore, in default of its lease obligations. The Plaintiff prevailed on its claims at trial and, subsequently, on October 14, 2009 entered into a Forbearance Agreement with the Company pursuant to which Douglas Emmet agreed to forebear on moving forward with eviction until December 31, 2009, if the Company agreed to pay to Douglas Emmet 50% of three month’s rent, in advance, for the months of October, November and December 2009. As of January 1, 2010, the Company was required to pay to Douglas Emmet the sum of $466,752 to become current under the existing lease or face immediate eviction and judgment for that amount. Prior to January 1, 2010, Douglas Emmet agreed to a month-to-month situation where Platinum pays 50% of its rent at the beginning of the month and the landlord holds back on eviction and enforcement of judgment while they evaluated whether they will consider negotiating a new lease with the Company that would potentially demise some of the Company’s office space back to the landlord as well as potentially forgive some of the past due rent. As of June 30, 2010, the Company abandoned the leasehold and moved to new offices. In January, 2011, Douglas Emmett served the Company a new lawsuit to recover unpaid rent and damages. The Company has responded to the summons and requested a settlement conference. The accounts payable of the Company include a balance to Douglass Emmet sufficient to cover the liability, in managements’ assessment.

With exception to the litigation disclosed above, we are not currently a party to, nor is any of our property currently the subject of, any additional pending legal proceeding that will have a material adverse effect on our business, nor are any of our directors, officers or affiliates involved in any proceedings adverse to our business or which have a material interest adverse to our business.