InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 9
Posts 732
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/27/2011

Re: HamDxer post# 31847

Thursday, 11/12/2015 10:55:31 AM

Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:55:31 AM

Post# of 33394
Mr. Iehab has already said that the new Playboy license was not in effect.

Cirtran’s 2013 10K states: “Playbev reached a settlement with Playboy that would have provided for a new license conditioned on bankruptcy court approval of PlaybBev’s reorganization plan, PlayBev’s payment of $2.0 million to Playboy, and other provisions, but PlayBev was unable to obtain the funding needed to pay Playboy the initial amount or otherwise implement the reorganization plan, so that plan was abandoned and the settlement agreement and the new Playboy license did not become effective.

In a related and similar case (Playsafe vs UMD) – in which Mr. Iehab and Fadi lost - relating to the allegation presented by Mr. Iehab of “tortious interference” the Appellate Court stated that “When there is no existing enforceable contract, a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relations will not lie.”

Hmm ….