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.
So the CEO is giving out insider information?
Interesting that the CEO is providing insider information on activity and events that have not been first publicly disclosed.
If true, definitely a reportable offense to the SEC.
The license is in dispute.
"We manufacture, market, and distribute internationally an energy drink under a license, now in dispute, with Playboy Enterprises, Inc., or Playboy"
- Cirtran 10K filed April 2013
The Company just disclosed publicly that it is manufacturing and distributing under a license that is in dispute.
If the dispute was no longer in play, the Company would need to (and want to) publicly disclose such information. They have not.
So, the reality is that the Company is continuing to operate under a disputed license.
The Company cannot tell you anything different if it has not first disclosed it publicly - you can't just call them and have them tell you something different. It does not work that way. The Company cannot tell you anything that is not already in a public filing such as a 10-K.
Cirtran's 10K stated that new license did not become effective even after they came out of bankruptcy.
"Playboy initially sought to terminate its product license agreement with PlayBev, but thereafter stipulated to suspend further proceedings pending the exploration of settlement. PlayBev reached a settlement with Playboy that would have provided for a new license, conditioned on bankruptcy court approval of PlayBev’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 the plan was abandoned and the settlement agreement and the new Playboy license did not become effective."
"We manufacture, market, and distribute internationally an energy drink under a license, now in dispute, with Playboy Enterprises, Inc., or Playboy, though our subsidiary, CirTran Beverage Corporation."
"On December 6, 2012, the bankruptcy proceeding of PlayBev was dismissed, freeing PlayBev and, in turn, us to pursue our beverage distribution business without court supervision. However, the validity of the license from Playboy under which we conduct these activities remains in dispute. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings."
This is what the Company publicly reported less than 3 weeks ago, which is different than what you are posting. It would seem that the Company's public filing to the SEC would be accurate.
CEO Earned $563,306 in 2012. Yes he did!
The Company 10K-A stated that the CEO earned $563,306 in 2012, $465,000 of that in salary.
From the 10K-A:
Name and Principal Position (a) Iehab J. Hawatmeh
Year (b) 2012
Salary (c) $465,000
Bonus (d) 66,376
Option (f) 5,852
All Other (i) 26,078
Total ($) (j) $563,306
In the same section the Company stated:
"Under our Forbearance Agreement with our principal secured lender, YA Global Investments, L.P., all cash amounts payable to Mr. Hawatmeh in excess of an aggregate of $120,000 per year is accrued and will not be paid until the obligation due YA Global is paid."
So, the CEO can't be paid more than $120,000 in cash per year of the $563,306 until YA Global is paid in full. However, apparently he can be paid in stock since that would be non-cash. At some point he will be paid the entire annual amount of $563,306, whether it is in cash or stock.
Probably before anyone else gets theirs (except for YA Global).
Possible Reasons
1) It is possible to make money shorting the stock.
2) Current investment is underwater so trying to help the unbewaring see that Cirtran is a bad investment (10 plus years of losses, reckless Management). Majority who invest in Cirtran lose money.
3) work for YA Global
4) work for Playboy
That's old? Less than 30 days ago the Company stated that the validity of the license under which it is currently operating is being disputed.
The fact that they put a copyright on the product while the dispute is being litigated does not mean that the license could well be terminated by Playboy, which is Playboy's intent.
The fact is the validity of the license remains in dispute.
As recently as April 20, 2013, the Company stated the following in its 10K:
PlayBev reached a settlement with Playboy that would have provided for a new license, conditioned on bankruptcy court approval of PlayBev’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 the plan was abandoned and the settlement agreement and the new Playboy license did not become effective.
On December 6, 2012, the bankruptcy proceeding of PlayBev was dismissed, freeing PlayBev and, in turn, us to pursue our beverage distribution business without court supervision. However, the validity of the license from Playboy under which we conduct these activities remains in dispute.
Playboy has sought to terminate PlayBev’s license to market Playboy-licensed energy drinks and has fought vigorously to obtain a judicial determination that the current license has been breached and is no longer in effect. We cannot assure that Playboy’s current aggressive pursuit of such a judicial determination in our pending Illinois litigation will not continue.
If the Playboy licensing dispute is not resolved satisfactorily to us through a negotiated settlement or the recently filed litigation, PlayBev would be required to terminate its beverage distribution activities, which are currently the principal source of our revenues. Such termination may require us to cease our activities and seek protection from creditors.
Interestingly they forgot to mention that the validity of the license remains in dispute.
As recently as April 20, 2013, the Company stated the following in its 10K:
PlayBev reached a settlement with Playboy that would have provided for a new license, conditioned on bankruptcy court approval of PlayBev’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 the plan was abandoned and the settlement agreement and the new Playboy license did not become effective.
On December 6, 2012, the bankruptcy proceeding of PlayBev was dismissed, freeing PlayBev and, in turn, us to pursue our beverage distribution business without court supervision. However, the validity of the license from Playboy under which we conduct these activities remains in dispute.
Playboy has sought to terminate PlayBev’s license to market Playboy-licensed energy drinks and has fought vigorously to obtain a judicial determination that the current license has been breached and is no longer in effect. We cannot assure that Playboy’s current aggressive pursuit of such a judicial determination in our pending Illinois litigation will not continue.
If the Playboy licensing dispute is not resolved satisfactorily to us through a negotiated settlement or the recently filed litigation, PlayBev would be required to terminate its beverage distribution activities, which are currently the principal source of our revenues. Such termination may require us to cease our activities and seek protection from creditors.
Same CEO = Same Losses
Cirtran has lost money each and every year for more than 10 years under the current CEO's leadership. If it was not for the closely held board of directors and his poison pill severance package, he should not be the CEO.
Playboy does not want to be associated with Playbev/Cirtran. Playboy might have messed up and could possibly have to settle but unlikely Playboy will continue license with Playbev. Cirtran did not meet required sales objectives.
So even though Cirtran might get some cash, with no Playboy license, Cirtran has no business operations.
No business operations, no Company.
A possible short-term settlement play; long term = only losses.
Same CEO = Same Losses
The Directors failed to file reports for 14 changes in ownership.
Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires our officers, directors, and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our common stock to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Officers, directors, and greater than 10% stockholders are also required by the SEC to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms that they file.
Based upon a review of these forms that were furnished to us, and based on representations made by certain persons who were subject to this obligation that such filings were not required to be made, we believe that all reports that were required to be filed by these individuals and persons under Section 16(a) were filed on time in fiscal year 2012, except that Kathryn Hollinger failed to report 4 transactions on Form 4, Iehab Hawatmeh failed to report 5 transactions on Form 4, and Fadi Nora failed to report 5 transactions on Form 4.
Form 4 reports changes in ownership to the SEC.
Ron Coopersmith 3 Cirtran 0
Looks like both of Mr. Coopersmith's actions were allowed while Cirtran's action was denied.
This stock is is a speculative play.
Re: .."we should not speculate..."
We should not speculate? All this stock is is a speculative play regarding the lawsuit with Playboy.
Cirtran has not made money in over a decade, even at the height of all of the playboy promotion. Not likely it will be any different in the future, especially if Cirtran (Playbev) loses the fight to retain the license. Keeping the license is itself speculation.
Cirtran might win its lawsuit against Playboy. Might settle with Playboy. Doubt it. Does not mean that Playboy will leave the license with Cirtran. Probably not.
Cirtran has admitted publicly that it has not met the minimum sales requirements to maintain the license.
No. This is definitely a speculative play.
"However, the validity of the license from Playboy under which we conduct these activities remains in dispute."
Management reported in the recent 10-K that the validity of the license remains in dispute.
So the Company is manufacturing while the validity of the license is litigated.
Even if there is a settlement unlikely the Company will retain the license. Playboy wants nothing to do with this Company.
YA Global covering short-sales with Cirtran shares issued per forbearance agreement?
My guess is bills are being paid
Similar to the previous several months as noted in the 10-K:
In March 2013, YA Global Investments (formerly known as Cornell Capital Partners, LP) elected to convert debt on three occasions in the amount of $100,000, $67,200, and $95,100 of their convertible debt into 219,377,621 shares of the Company’s common stock at prices ranging from $.0011 to $.0013 per share.
Conversion of Payables
In January 2013, an unrelated party elected to convert debt in the amount of $28,000 of their payables into 7,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $.004 per share. The Company also agreed to prepay for services with the same unrelated party with the issuance of 13,000,000 common shares at a strike price of $.0017 on the date of issuance in the amount of $22,100.
In January 2013, an employee elected to convert debt in the amount of $29,000 of liabilities into 29,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $.001 per share.
In February 2013, an unrelated party elected to convert debt in the amount of $20,800 for services into 25,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $.0063 per share.
Activity likely not Cirtran.
According to Cirtran's recent 10-K filing, the company only has 3 full time employees in Utah:
"As of April 15, 2013, we employed a total staff of three full-time employees in our Utah headquarters: two in administrative and clerical positions and one in project management. "
The people are more likely Katana employees since Katana has taken over the lease and Cirtran is only subleasing "office space" per the 10-K:
"On July 1, 2011, Katana had assumed the full lease payment, and the Company agreed to pay Katana $5,000 per month for the use of office space and utilities. "
Nothing is mentioned about manufacturing space. Per the 10K, in 2012 less than $100k of electronics and contract manufacturing for the entire year, so looks like Cirtran has nothing going on at that facility.
I searched for Katana on the web and found the following link:
http://www.katanaelectronicsllc.com/#!gallery
Is this the facility that you say you drive by and that you visited? Did it have the Katana sign?
Default judgment against Redi FZE
Redi FZE v. CirTran Beverage Corp, in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Civil No. 110915101. In a complaint filed in June 2011, Redi asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentations. CirTran Beverage Corp. filed a counterclaim against Redi FZE and its principal, Paul Levin, for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a third-party claim for tortious interference against Paul Levin. On November 21, 2011, the court granted an injunction against Redi FZE, enjoining it from manufacturing, marketing, or distributing any nonalcoholic beverages identified by the trademarked Playboy, PlayBev, and Play Beverages names or the Playboy rabbit head design in the United Kingdom, France, or the Netherlands through June 13, 2013. During 2012, counsel for Redi FZE withdrew and no new counsel appeared. On November 21, 2011, we obtained a $1.2 million default judgment against Redi FZE. We were able to serve Paul Levin in early 2013, but his responsive pleading is not yet due.
Not likely.
Cirtran 10K:
“Playboy has sought to terminate PlayBev’s license to market Playboy-licensed energy drinks and has fought vigorously to obtain a judicial determination that the current license has been breached and is no longer in effect. We cannot assure that Playboy’s current aggressive pursuit of such a judicial determination in our pending Illinois litigation will not continue. “
From Cirtran's 10k
As a result of these factors, our overall net loss decreased to $1,787,643 for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to a net loss of $7,043,410 for the year ended December 31, 2011, of which $1,539,619 and $746,147 was attributable to our non-controlling equity interest in PlayBev, during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
The 2nd half of the story …
Playboy initially sought to terminate its product license agreement with PlayBev, but thereafter stipulated to suspend further proceedings pending the exploration of settlement. PlayBev reached a settlement with Playboy that would have provided for a new license, conditioned on bankruptcy court approval of PlayBev’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 the plan was abandoned and the settlement agreement and the new Playboy license did not become effective.
Playboy has sought to terminate PlayBev’s license to market Playboy-licensed energy drinks and has fought vigorously to obtain a judicial determination that the current license has been breached and is no longer in effect. We cannot assure that Playboy’s current aggressive pursuit of such a judicial determination in our pending Illinois litigation will not continue. If the Playboy licensing dispute is not resolved satisfactorily through a negotiated settlement or litigation in such proceeding, we would be required to terminate its beverage distribution activities, which are currently the source of our only revenue. Such termination may require us to cease our activities and seek protection from creditors.
It appears that the Company is trying to shift its losses to PlayBev, which has no operations. Hmm. Interesting.
Consider yourself warned.
...Cirtran is Real = Real Losses
Yeah, Cirtran is real: 10 years of real losses. Over the past 10 years Cirtran has used cash - never generated cash.
Cirtran Net Cash Used In Operations
12 months ending 12/31/12 ($503,435)
12 months ending 12/31/11 ($320,115)
12 months ending 12/31/10 ($688,240)
12 months ending 12/31/09 ($485,406)
12 months ending 12/31/08 ($4,594,742)
12 months ending 12/31/07 ($4,260,618)
12 months ending 12/31/06 ($1,729,901)
12 months ending 12/31/05 ($1,751,744)
12 months ending 12/31/04 ($1,680,054)
12 months ending 12/31/03 ($1,123,818)
If that is what you want in a real company, then that is what you get with this CEO. Real losses.
An alias summons is a second summons served when the first attempt at serving a summons is unsuccessful.
A summons is a paper issued by a court informing a person that a complaint has been filed against her. It may be served by a sheriff or other authorized person for service of process, called a process server.
An alias summons is also sometimes called a pluries summons, which more generally refers to an additional summons.
A case management conference is usually the first opportunity for both sides of a lawsuit to see each other and determine the strength of their cases. It's also an opportunity for the court to set a schedule of events which will take place in the course of the lawsuit.
All lawsuits involve a series of events which ultimately lead to the trial. Before the trial, both parties may collect information (called "discovery") which can be used at the trial. At the case management conference, you can determine a schedule for both parties to produce documents, answer interrogatories (questions about facts), and set up depositions.
While you can use the case management conference to discuss the case with the other side and discuss potential settlement, you do not have to do so.
The debt was not because of all the attacks.
As of 12-31-09 Cirtran had total liabilities of $19,608,162.
That was long before the current licensing issues and lawsuits.
That was because of bad management - same CEO.
The new Playboy license did not become effective. The validity of the license from Playboy under which Cirtran conducts activities remains in dispute.
From the 12-31-12 10K:
CirTran Beverage manufactures, markets, and distributes Playboy-branded energy drinks in accordance with an agreement we entered into with Play Beverages, LLC, or PlayBev, a consolidated variable interest entity, which holds the Playboy license.
Playboy initially sought to terminate its product license agreement with PlayBev, but thereafter stipulated to suspend further proceedings pending the exploration of settlement. PlayBev reached a settlement with Playboy that would have provided for a new license, conditioned on bankruptcy court approval of PlayBev’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 the plan was abandoned and the settlement agreement and the new Playboy license did not become effective.
Playboy asserts that the license is no longer valid and that PlayBev is no longer authorized to market the Playboy-branded energy drink, which is now being litigated. However, the validity of the license from Playboy under which we conduct these activities remains in dispute.
The Company’s ability to continue energy drink distribution, its principal source of revenue, is subject to interruption or termination because of PlayBev’s ongoing disputes respecting the status of the PlayBev license to market Playboy-licensed energy drinks. The Company is continuing its suit against Playboy in Illinois in an effort to enjoin Playboy’s termination of the license so the Company will be able to continue its beverage distribution segment. If the Playboy licensing dispute is not resolved satisfactorily through a negotiated settlement or litigation in such proceeding, PlayBev would be required to terminate its beverage distribution activities, which are currently the source of the Company’s principal revenues. Such termination may require the Company to cease its activities and seek protection from creditors.
Playboy has sought to terminate PlayBev’s license to market Playboy-licensed energy drinks and has fought vigorously to obtain a judicial determination that the current license has been breached and is no longer in effect. We cannot assure that Playboy’s current aggressive pursuit of such a judicial determination in our pending Illinois litigation will not continue. If the Playboy licensing dispute is not resolved satisfactorily through a negotiated settlement or litigation in such proceeding, we would be required to terminate its beverage distribution activities, which are currently the source of our only revenue. Such termination may require us to cease our activities and seek protection from creditors.
...Making money? No they are not.
Net Loss = ($1,787,643)
Still using more cash than they are generating.
"Expenses paid by third-party on behalf of the company" = $735,000.
What kind of arrangement is that?
SEC Deadline is 5:30 p.m EST
They did not have the $1.4 million pay LIB-MP so they negotiated to offset each others obligations. They still do not have cash to pay YAG.
We will find out tomorrow how much cash they actually had as of the end of the year.
Exactly - a trend where Cirtran uses less money when there are no operations!
Interesting that you recommend a company where the company is better off with no operations. The company uses (loses) less money when they do not operate. Hmm?
The history is clear - Cirtran has not generated any cash from operations in at least 10 years. Fact.
Cirtran Net Cash Used In Operations
12 months ending 12/31/12 ?
12 months ending 12/31/11 ($320,115)
12 months ending 12/31/10 ($688,240)
12 months ending 12/31/09 ($485,406)
12 months ending 12/31/08 ($4,594,742)
12 months ending 12/31/07 ($4,260,618)
12 months ending 12/31/06 ($1,729,901)
12 months ending 12/31/05 ($1,751,744)
12 months ending 12/31/04 ($1,680,054)
12 months ending 12/31/03 ($1,123,818)
What is going to change now? Nothing. Same CEO. Same results.
You are missing the point.
The point is not the lawsuit - take a look at the last ten years of operations - huge USES of cash. Cirtran operations have not generated cash in more than 10 years. That is the point.
Hear and see what you want to see, I guess.
Be Careful ....
Cirtran Net Cash Used In Operations
12 months ending 12/31/12 ?
12 months ending 12/31/11 ($320,115)
12 months ending 12/31/10 ($688,240)
12 months ending 12/31/09 ($485,406)
12 months ending 12/31/08 ($4,594,742)
12 months ending 12/31/07 ($4,260,618)
12 months ending 12/31/06 ($1,729,901)
12 months ending 12/31/05 ($1,751,744)
12 months ending 12/31/04 ($1,680,054)
12 months ending 12/31/03 ($1,123,818)
Not likely the future will be any different.
Reverse the magistrate's ruling
The magistrate's ruling was "refusing to bind over the defendants on the charge of aggravated kidnapping ..."
"We reverse the magistrate's ruling ..."
that refusal looks like it was reversed so that the defendants could be bound over on the charge.
Search Google for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
State of Utah, v. Hawatmeh, No. 20000366,
The only family member being overpaid in the CEO himself.
YAG must be getting ready to get paid again in shares.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Iehab Jamil HAWATMEH,
No. 20000366.
-- June 22, 2001
Standard practice for outgoing corporate officers
Pretty standard practice for a former Officer of the company to receive a severance package. Looks like the brother no longer works for the company. I wonder why?
Wrong. 4.5 Billion authorized not outstanding.
A big difference. If 4.5 billion already outstanding, then the stock would already be diluted. With 4.5 billion authorized and only 1.9 billion outstanding that says there is still potential for more dilution. Big difference.
Playbev was in Bankruptcy.
I previously said Afterbev but it was actually Playbev.
Authorized shares = 4.5 Billion
What is important is the number of shares that are authorized. In the Sep 2012 10-Q the authorized number of shares was listed as 4.5 billion, with 1.95B issued and outstanding.
This is significant because it allows Cirtran to continue to issue shares as needed up to the 4.5 billion authorized limit. So if Cirtran needs to pay YAG with shares because it has no cash, there are sufficient authorized shares to do so. YAG knows that.
That is a problem.
Cirtran was never in Bankruptcy!
Afterbev was in bankruptcy. Very important distinction.
Cirtran's problems are horrific management, resulting in a lack of working capital.
Stay away.