Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Playboy is a privately held company. How do you know anything about their financial situation? They do not publish public financial information.
Similar to the result of the Kraft vs Starbucks litigation, Cirtran might be awarded $ damages but will likely not end up with the licensing rights.
After further checking, the filing is due today, 45 days after the quarter end. However, an extension gives an additional 5 days, which would be the 19th, so I would expect the filing on Tuesday.
Key is how much operating cash is generated.
Not likely - expect it on the 20th.
Cirtran regularly files an extension (5 days) since it cannot file on time "because the Company has limited financial resources and personnel ...to timely complete and verify its financial statements"
Interesting read - several similarities.
Key point: Kraft won a settlement, but Starbucks still took away the distribution.
If Cirtran wins a $ settlement, and Playboy takes away the distribution rights, Cirtran has nothing left but some cash to pay off it's $22 million debt. Cirtran has no other operations. Zero.
Monster still dominating - CIRC has no chance.
"We are pleased to report another quarter of solid sales growth, in both our domestic and international markets. The Monster Energy® brand continues to grow in excess of category growth in its major markets and the brand's market share continues to increase in these markets. Monster Energy® Zero Ultra, launched in the third quarter of 2012, and Monster Energy® Ultra Blue, launched in March 2013, are now ranked among our best-selling products. Following on these successful product launches, we introduced Monster Energy® Ultra Red in September 2013. According to Nielsen, Muscle Monster®, launched in March 2013, is now ranked second to the market leader in the ready-to-drink protein supplement segment in the convenience and gas channel in the United States.
No chance CIRC can compete with the “big boys”
"We are continuing with our plans to introduce the Monster Energy® brand in new international markets and are pleased to report that we received regulatory approval for the sale of Monster Energy® brand energy drinks in India in October 2013.
There goes Circ’s India sales to zero.
Federal judge stayed the case pending the resolution of a parallel state-court lawsuit.
http://www.law360.com/articles/442570/playboy-denied-injunction-in-bunny-mark-row
Law360, New York (May 17, 2013, 3:16 PM ET) -- An Illinois federal judge Wednesday denied Playboy Enterprises International Inc.'s bid for a preliminary injunction against a beverage company alleged to have infringed Playboy's famous "bunny" mark, and stayed the case pending the resolution of a parallel state-court lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the complaint between Playboy and Play Beverages LLC was similar to a lawsuit involving the same parties filed last year in Cook County, Illinois. Both lawsuits revolve around the same disputed terms of a licensing agreement that Play Bev said allowed it to use the "bunny" mark, the court said.
Since "substantial overlap" of facts exist in the federal lawsuit and the state court lawsuit, inconsistent rulings potentially could contradict each other, Judge Gettleman said. If both lawsuits proceed at the same time, the dueling courts adjudicating the actions would be pitted in a "destructive race" to see which forum could resolve litigation first," the ruling said.
Playboy sought a court order barring Play Bev from using the rabbit head design or any similar marks on its products, as well as an order halting it from using the domain name PlayboyEnergy.com.
"At the heart of both cases is the status of the license agreement," Judge Gettleman said in the order. "The determination of whether defendants are entitled to continue to use the marks is crucial to the outcome of both actions."
The ruling puts the federal complaint on ice until the state court litigation is resolved. Playboy in February filed the federal lawsuit and moved for injunctive relief against Play Bev. The dispute relates to an underlying licensing deal Playboy and Play Bev struck seven years ago.
The companies in 2006 signed a license agreement granting Play Bev a limited right to manufacture and sell Playboy-branded energy drinks. The agreement was set to expire March 31, 2012, and contained a renewal term of five years.
When the beverage company went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2011, it agreed with Playboy to extend the existing license agreement while negotiations for a new one were still pending, the complaint said. But Play Bev allegedly failed to meet the conditions for the new license agreement after it didn't obtain investment funds to capitalize the reorganized business and confirm its Chapter 11 reorganization plan.
Subsequently, Play Bev in October 2012 sued Playboy in Illinois state court — months before Playboy filed the parallel federal lawsuit. Play Bev claimed Playboy had refused to renew the license agreement despite its good-faith obligation to do so.
Playboy said Friday that, with the ruling, the company will still be able to pursue its claims against Play Bev and CirTran Beverages Corp., which markets and distributes Playboy Energy Drink.
"Playboy looks forward to pursuing and demonstrating that PlayBev, CirTran and their principals are unauthorized in conducting the Playboy energy drink business and in unlawfully making money from the Playboy brand," the company said in an email.
Representatives for Play Bev didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Playboy is represented by M. David Weisman and Mpoli Simwanza-Johnson of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Richard J. Frey, Tamany Vinson Bentz, Melissa C. McLaughlin and Marcella Ballard of Venable LLP.
Agreed - nothing more here than a legal play. Nothing else.
First 6 months of 2013 was less than $2 million. $7 - 8 million would be triple the sales.
We will just have to wait until the 20th to find out.
People have to be able to buy it to drink it, and since most people can't find it they will not buy it.
2012 Sales
Red Bull $2.9 Billion
Monster $2.6 Billion
Rockstar $780 Million
AMP $300 Million
NOS $250 Million
Full Throttle $140 Million
PBED $4.2 million
Distribution channel
Red Bull Red Bull
Monster Coca Cola / Anhesuer-Busch
Rockstar Pepsi
AMP Pepsi
NOS Coca Cola
Full Throttle Coca Cola
PBED PureRNG
Who is your source that they are tying up loose ends?
Purpose of an IPO is for investors to pay the Company cash in exchange for shares, not the Company to pay investors for shares. Makes no sense to pay for shares - Company wants to get cash, not spend for shares, especially on a company with $20+ million in current liabilities and 10+ years of using cash - not generating cash.
Can someone with Pure NRGfx verify these claims? Pretty significant.
Eric J. Caparese, Co-founder and CEO Brain Abundance
[url]https://www.facebook.com/pages/Brain-Abundance-Corporate/1405424126357226
Rachel & Bani Holcombe
[url]https://www.purenrgfx.com/RB.php
Obviously you are the one that is not reading (illiterate) - my questions have to deal with who voted the drink "best taste". Who said anything about lower calories? Obviously you are trying to avoid answering the question because the only one who voted it best taste was Mr. Iehab and his minions.
Same shenanigans.
Since it appears that Cirtran is making up "Voted Best Tasting" as no one can detail who voted and as part of what independent taste taste, it just shows the same sleeziness that Mr. Iehab uses in all of his business practices.
Who voted it best taste? Mr. Iehab?
Who did the survey? Let's see the independent results.
Smart businessman? LOL.
Cirtran Corporation (CIRC)
Income / (loss) from Operations
2003 $(2,523,665)
2004 (1,876,333)
2005 190,213
2006 (2,667,164)
2007 (4,801,900)
2008 (4,205,916)
2009 (4,342,761)
2010 (2,972,488)
2011 (7,043,410)
2012 (1,787,643)
Who signed the agreement with "pos" YAG? The pos CEO!
Successful my @$$
Cirtran Corporation (CIRC)
Losses Cash Used
2007 $(4,801,900) $(4,260,618)
2008 (4,205,916) (4,594,742)
2009 (4,342,761) (485,406)
2010 (2,972,488) (688,240)
2011 (7,043,410) (320,115)
2012 (1,787,643) (165,897)
2013 $(186,147) 15,948
$22million in negative working capital.
His skill in surviving is taking money from others and not paying them back.
United Licensing Group
101 Udine Way
Los Angeles, CA 90077 –
Phone: (310) 275-7599
United Licensing Group in Los Angeles, CA is a private company categorized under License Services. Current estimates show this company has annual revenue of $1 to 2.5 million and employs a staff of approximately 10 to 19.
http://www.manta.com/c/mmd81mn/united-licensing-group
Jimmy Esebag, 50, is the chairman of United Licensing Group, although not a household name the company owns the rights to the Playboy brand and various other household names.
Renowned entrepreneur Jimmy Esebag has announced the launch and worldwide distribution of Playboy Condoms - the first and only line of top quality prophylactics to sport the legendary brand synonymous with sophistication, high style and pleasure - through the company United Medical Devices (UMD). ...
A visionary businessman whose pioneering expertise in corporate and celebrity brand management has brought him international acclaim and respect, Esebag is chairman of United Licensing Group, and known as the impresario who pioneered the Playboy licensing empire.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jimmy-Esebag/490887537
YAG knows what they are doing.
Sell / short a few million shares to help drive down the share price in advance of receiving their payment from Cirtran with hundreds of millions of shares at a discounted price.
"We continue to have the right, subject to the consent of YA Global, to pay all or any portion of the payments listed above in common stock, with the conversion price to be used to determine the number of shares being equal to 85% of the lowest closing bid price of our common stock during the 10 trading days prior to the payment date."
Who is stupid?
Beveragedaily.com response
I contacted Ben Bouckley who wrote the article asking where his information came from regarding the playboy statement referring to Pure Nrg fx.
His email response was:
Hi Mxxxxx,
I can’t advise you on investment decision, and can only go by the statement PlayBoy sent to me, which is not particularly detailed. Sorry to not be of greater help.
Best wishes,
Ben Bouckley
ben.bouckley@wrbm.com
Laughable - there's nothing else.
Sales for six months ended June 30:
Beverage Contract Manu Elec Assemb
2013 1,907,631 57,212 -
2012 878,830 55,625 -
Twelve Months ending Dec 31:
Beverage Contract Manu Elec Assemb
2012 4,177,624 81,361 1,432
2011 2,943,921 120,517 -
2010 7,712,492 66,880 170,444
Sure.
http://www.mlmwatch.org/01General/10lies.html
You can do your own DD on the companies referred to by 12yrplan.
10 MLM Lies
Here are ten lies that Robert L Fitzpatrick has identified during more than 20 years of observing the MLM marketplace:
Lie #1: MLM offers better opportunities than all other conventional business and professional models for making large amounts of money.
Truth: For almost everyone who invests, MLM turns out to be a losing financial proposition. Fewer than 1% of all MLM distributors ever earn a profit and those earning a sustainable living at this business are a much smaller percentage still.
Extraordinary sales and marketing obstacles account for much of this failure, but even if the business were more feasible, sheer mathematics would severely limit the opportunity. The MLM business structure can support only a small number of financial winners. If a 1,000-person downline is needed to earn a sustainable income, those 1,000 will need one million more to duplicate the success. How many people can realistically be enrolled? Much of what appears as growth is in fact only the continuous churning of new enrollees. The money for the rare winners comes from the constant enrollment of armies of losers. With no limits on numbers of distributors in an area and no evaluation of market potential, the system is also inherently unstable.
Lie #2: Network marketing is the most popular and effective new way to bring products to market. Consumers like to buy products on a one-to-one basis in the MLM model.
Truth: Personal retailing -- including nearly all forms of door-to-door selling -- is a thing of the past, not the wave of the future. Retailing directly to friends on a one-to-one basis requires people to drastically change their buying habits. They must restrict their choices, often pay more for goods, buy inconveniently, and engage in potentially awkward business relationships with close friends and relatives. In reality, MLM depends on reselling the opportunity to sign up more distributors.
Lie #3: Eventually all products will be sold by MLM. Retail stores, shopping malls,
catalogs and most forms of advertising will soon be rendered obsolete by MLM.
Truth: Fewer than 1% of all retail sales are made through MLM, and much of this is consists of purchases by hopeful new distributors who are actually paying the price of admission to a business they will soon abandon. MLM is not replacing existing forms of marketing. It does not legitimately compete with other marketing approaches at all. Rather, MLM represents a new investment scheme couched in the language of marketing. Its real products are distributorships that are sold through misrepresentation and exaggerated promises of income. People are buying products in order to secure positions on the sales pyramid. The possibility is always held out that you may become rich if not from your own efforts then from some unknown person ("the big fish") who might join your "downline."
MLM's growth does not reflect its value to the economy, customers, or distributors, but the high levels of economic fear, insecurity, wishes for quick and easy wealth. The market dynamics are similar to those of legalized gambling, but the percentage of winners is much smaller.
Lie #4: MLM is a new way of life that offers happiness and fulfillment.
It provides a way to attain all the good things in life.
Truth: The most prominent motivational themes of the MLM industry, as shown in industry literature and presented at recruitment meetings, constitute the crassest form of materialism. Fortune 100 companies would blush at the excess of promises of wealth, luxury, and personal fulfillment put forth by MLM solicitors. These appeals actually conflicts with most people's true desire for meaningful and fulfilling work at something in which they have special talent or interest.
Lie #5: MLM is a spiritual movement.
Truth: The use of spiritual concepts like prosperity consciousness and creative visualization to promote MLM enrollment, the use of words like "communion" to describe a sales organization, and claims that MLM fulfills Christian principles or Scriptural prophecies are great distortions of these spiritual practices. Those who focus their hopes and dreams upon wealth as the answer to their prayers lose sight of genuine spirituality as taught by religions. The misuse of these spiritual principles should be a signal that the investment opportunity is deceptive. When a product is wrapped in the flag or in religion, buyer beware! The "community" and "support" offered by MLM organizations to new recruits is based entirely upon their purchases. If the purchases and enrollment decline, so does the "communion.'"
Lie #6: Success in MLM is easy. Friends and relatives are the natural prospects.
Those who love and support you will become your life-time customers.
Truth: The commercialization of family and friendship and the use of"'warm leads" advocated in MLM marketing programs are a destructive element in the community and very unhealthy for individuals involved. People do not appreciate being pressured by friends and relatives to buy products. Trying to capitalizing upon personal relationships to build a business can destroy one's social foundation.
Lie #7: You can do MLM in your spare time. As a business, it offers the greatest flexibility
and personal freedom of time. A few hours a week can earn a significant supplemental income
and may grow to a very large income, making other work unnecessary.
Truth: Making money in MLM requires extraordinary time commitment as well as considerable personal skill and persistence. Beyond the sheer hard work and talent required, the business model inherently consumes more areas of one's life and greater segments of time than most occupations. In MLM, everyone is a prospect. Every waking moment is a potential time for marketing. There are no off-limit places, people, or times for selling. Consequently, there is no free space or free time once a person enrolls in MLM system. While claiming to offer independence, the system comes to dominate people's entire life and requires rigid conformity to the program. This is why so many people who become deeply involved end up needing and relying upon MLM desperately. They alienate or abandon other sustaining relationships.
Lie #8. MLM is a positive, supportive new business that
affirms the human spirit and personal freedom.
Truth: MLM is largely fear-driven. Solicitations inevitably include dire predictions about the impending collapse of other forms of distribution, the disintegration or insensitivity of corporate America, and the lack of opportunity in other occupations. Many occupations are routinely demeaned for not offering"unlimited income." Working for others is cast as enslavement for "losers." MLM is presented as the last best hope for many people. This approach, in addition to being deceptive, frequently discourages people who otherwise would pursue their own unique visions of success and happiness. A sound business opportunity does not have to base its worth on negative predictions and warnings.
Lie #9. MLM is the best option for owning your own
business and attaining real economic independence.
Truth: MLM is not true self-employment. "Owning" an MLM distributorship is an illusion. Some MLM companies forbid distributors to carry other companies' products. Most MLM contracts make termination of the distributorship easy and immediate for the company. Short of termination, downlines can be taken away arbitrarily. Participation requires rigid adherence to a "duplication" model, not independence and individuality. MLM distributors are not entrepreneurs but joiners in a complex hierarchical system over which they have little control.
Lie #10: MLM is not a pyramid scheme because products are sold.
Truth: The sale of products does not protect against anti-pyramid-scheme laws or unfair trade practices set forth in federal and state law. MLM is a legal form of business only under rigid conditions set forth by the FTC and state attorneys general. Many MLMs are violate these guidelines and operate only because they have not been prosecuted. Recent court rulings are using a 70% rule to determine an MLM's legality: At least 70% of all goods sold by the MLM company must be purchased by nondistributors. This standard would place most MLM companies outside the law. The largest MLM acknowledges that only 18% of its sales are made to nondistributors.[color=red][/color]
PBE MLM not the same.
The MLM companies that you identified all market juices that offer “superfood” content and Antioxidants.
Mona Vie – “healthy formulas”
Xango – Powerful Asian fruit mangosteen, “where it’s revered for its flavor and connection to good health”
Zrii – “A breakthrough in Radiant Health”
Visalus – “Body by Vi”
These products all promote both business opportunities to distributors willing to sell the hope of better health.
PBE does not claim to promote better health, so the marketing difference is significant, unless one tries to take advantage of the “horny goat weed” extract included in the drink.
Who voted? Cirtran employees?
Voted best tasting by Mr. Iehab?
I like her legal experience with domestic violence. She will understand well the detail of the State of Utah vs. Iehab Jamil Hawatmeh family matter.
www.leagle.com/decision/200124926P3d223_1244
A protective order can limit the time and place where a deposition can be taken, restrict the inspection of documents in the possession of party, or regulate or modify the enforcement of a judgment. So not sure there is anything significant at this point. I am not one of the insiders posting on the board who is attending the court hearings.
Primary source of information has been the Cirtran public filings. You know that but are simply trying to misinform and deflect the facts about this Company.
You should read it again:
"Net revenue is after all expenses and taxes are subtracted out"
Nope.
Net revenue typically refers to a company's revenue net of discounts and returns.
Net profit is sales net of all expenses.
Net profit after tax is sales net of all expenses and taxes.
Easy enough to find out (DD) using Google.
Wrong again. Net income is after all expenses and taxes are subtracted from Revenues. Mr. Iehab doesn't understand either that revenue has to be more than expenses to generate income and cash.
Year Net Sales Income / (loss) Royalty Expense
2003 $1,215,245 $(2,523,665) $-
2004 8,862,715 (1,876,333) -
2005 12,992,512 190,213 -
2006 8,739,208 (2,667,164) -
2007 12,399,793 (4,801,900) (93,104)
2008 13,675,545 (4,205,916) (827,813)
2009 9,732,855 (4,342,761) (745,121)
2010 9,044,902 (2,972,488) (2,257,582)
2011 3,064,438 (7,043,410) (2,142,765)
2012 4,260,417 (1,787,643) (614,721)
2013 (6 mos) $1,964,843 $(186,147) $(37,494)
If there is an accrual for royalties the expense should still be shown in the proper account, which obviously is not happening.
Seems like if the Company is operating with the assumption that the license is still active, then there should be an expense accrual even though there is an active lawsuit about whether or not the license is valid. If the license is not valid, then the accrual simply gets reversed.
It appears that the purported businessman in reality does not understand accrual accounting.
The royalty expense numbers do not make sense. Something does not look right. Not talking about the cost of sales to produce the product. Royalty expense = the cost to use the license.
Beverage Sales Royalty Expense
2007 $- $(93,104)
2008 1,500,713 (827,813)
2009 1,784,028 (745,121)
2010 7,712,492 (2,257,582)
2011 2,943,921 (2,142,765)
2012 4,177,624 (614,721)
2013ytd $ 1,907,631 $ (37,494)
Can't wait to see how much royalty expense the Company records related to the drink.
The problem with the numbers is that there does not appear to be any cost for the playboy royalty expense as in previous years. Why not? Include that and there is not profit. Hopefully the SEC will investigate.
The past keeps repeating itself. That is the problem.
And as long as Cirtran continues with the current CEO the results will continue to be the same.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Why hasn't Cirtran issued a press release about PureNRG?
The past speaks for itself!
Cirtran Corporation (CIRC)
Losses Cash Used
2007 $(4,801,900) $(4,260,618)
2008 (4,205,916) (4,594,742)
2009 (4,342,761) (485,406)
2010 (2,972,488) (688,240)
2011 (7,043,410) (320,115)
2012 (1,787,643) (165,897)
2013ytd $(186,147) 15,948
CEO Salary:
Year 2012
Salary $465,000
Bonus 66,376
Option 5,852
All Other 26,078
Total ($) $563,306
Do not have to dig much deep than that! The CEO is incompetent and a swindler.
Sleep well.
Your are correct - I missed that one.
What is the point though? This CEO creates problems & losses, and squanders cash. That is the key point here. He is not a "wise businessman" as his complicit insiders purport.
No - Cirtran was not in bankruptcy - Playbev was.