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.
The constant “hopeful” speculation is nauseating. What facts do we know?
1) Cirtran has had 15 CONSECUTIVE years of operating losses.
2) Cirtran has not filed financials in over a year (11/19/14)
3) Cirtran has minimal distribution channels is the U.S.
4) Cirtran has no money.
5) Cirtran has inept management (Mr. Iehab is Chairman, CEO, President, CFO, etc.)
6) Mr. Iehab has already lost a similar lawsuit (contract was terminated and Mr. Iehab sued) to Jimmy Esebag (12 to 0 against Mr. Iehab (Playsafe) on all claims.)
Let a Jury decide.
no idea. the vote however passed in the affirmative despite the "millions" of no votes. just saying.
Not likely. Just take a look at the votes for the reverse split. They were meaningless.
"Well run company again" Since when has Circ been a well run company? 15 years of consecutive losses. Unless Mr. Iehab exits, nothing will change. He will squander any and all settlement funds. Just watch.
What company has gone from ZERO sales to $100,000,000 in five years? None. Given Cirtran’s 15 years of history of consecutive losses with Mr. Iehab at the helm, no chance sales reach $100,000,000, let alone net profit reaching that level. Pure nonsense. Cirtran has no operations and without the Playboy trademark, Cirtran will have to start from scratch. Any settlement money will fund debt, payback Mr. Iehab’s friends with short-term loans, and then himself. Then royalties and damages owed Playboy.
Since I do not know Mr. Iehab personally, I need to decide between Sparky’s personal reference from 20 years ago or the recent unbiased character assessment by the trail court in the PlaySafe lawsuit.
As previously posted the appellate court upheld the following statement from the trial court:
“In granting the motion, the trial court concluded that “the evidence that Hawatmeh and Nora abused the corporate structure of PlaySafe to, in effect, operate it as their personal bank account is overwhelming. They effectively looted the corporation by taking out more than $1 million in loans over a 13 month period rendering PlaySafe effectively insolvent. Indeed, PlaySafe had only been capitalized with a total of $700,000. The suggestion that these loans were approved by ‘independent directors’ is belied completely by the evidence.”
Such an assessment of looting and abuse seems to coincide with the past 15 years of management by Mr. Iehab as CEO at Cirtran. I would expect that to continue in the future as well.
I think that I will trust the trial court assessment of Mr. Iehab.
The real coward is Mr. Iehab who, for 15 years, has “looted” corporate coffers to enrich himself at the expense of investors. What public entity allows a Chief Executive to continue after 15 consecutive years of losses? Why has he not had the courage to resign? His accomplice all these years (Mr. Fadi) resigned.
Mr Iehab has documented his actions himself in lawsuits and public filings - no need to make this stuff up. It is Mr. Iehab's reality.
The appellate court in the Playsafe (Mr. Iehab & Mr. Fadi) vs United Medical case upheld the following statement from the trial court:
“In granting the motion, the trial court concluded that “the evidence that Hawatmeh and Nora abused the corporate structure of PlaySafe to, in effect, operate it as their personal bank account is overwhelming. They effectively looted the corporation by taking out more than $1 million in loans over a 13 month period rendering PlaySafe effectively insolvent. Indeed, PlaySafe had only been capitalized with a total of $700,000. The suggestion that these loans were approved by ‘independent directors’is belied completely by the evidence.”
Loss from Operations
2014 ?
2013 (1,015,316)
2012 (375,813)
2011 (7,043,410)
2010 (1,015,316)
2009 (5,814,653)
2008 (3,911,212)
2007 (7,232,524)
2006 (2,854,369)
2005 (527,708)
2004 (658,322)
2003 (2,910,978)
2002 (2,149,810)
2001 (2,933,084)
2000 (2,791,888)
1999 (3,768,905)
With no trademark license there will be no adding distributors and filling the pipeline so your $.02 and $.03 is not likely.
The last time the stock price reached $.02 was in 2007 at the height of the new product roll-out hype (bus tours, parties, etc). With no operations and no license agreement the stock has little chance of rebounding.
With Mr. Iehab at the helm there is no chance the stock price will get to $.20. The stock has never reached $.03. EVER. Mr Iehab will squander funds trying to market some new product all over again. 15 years of consecutive annual losses .... and counting.
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 ….
“Reasonable & Fair? Recent evidence reveals Mr. Iehab to be someone quite different.
In the trial of Playsafe (Mr. Iehab = Chairman, President & CEO and Fadi = Board Member) vs United Medical, where Playsafe had ZERO sales, Mr. Iehab sued for breach of contract and faud, seeking $10.5 million. That does not seem reasonable. The Jury agreed, finding 12 – 0 against Playsafe on all its claims.
The appellate court also upheld the following statement from the trial court:
“In granting the motion, the trial court concluded that “the evidence that Hawatmeh and Nora abused the corporate structure of PlaySafe to, in effect, operate it as their personal bank account is overwhelming. They effectively looted the corporation by taking out more than $1 million in loans over a 13 month period rendering PlaySafe effectively insolvent. Indeed, PlaySafe had only been capitalized with a total of $700,000. The suggestion that these loans were approved by ‘independent directors’ is belied completely by the evidence.”
The words “loot”, “abused”, and “personal” do not reflect reasonable or fair.
Egocentric is probably a better word to describe Mr. Iehab. Egocentrism - a personality characteristic in which people see themselves and their interests and opinions as the only ones that really matter.
More like reality. If you read the 10k's the $2 million is roughly the same royalty amount as what CIRC shows as royalty expense under the Beverage Distribution segment (for example, see the 2010 10K). The $2 million established was likely just the minimum annual royalty amount that was due since inception of the license arrangement. Mr. Iehab simply could not meet the terms of the original agreement.
...and when the trademark rights go away, then what?
It speaks to the fact that Mr. Iehab is a "looter" as indicated by the trial court. That is the point.
So do I believe Farky or the Trial Court Judges? Is Mr. Iehab "Jobs-like" or a thief "looting" corporations?
In the Playsafe case (vs United Medical) the appellate court upheld the following statement from the trail court:
"In granting the motion, the trial court concluded that “the evidence that Hawatmeh and Nora abused the corporate structure of [PlaySafe] to, in effect, operate it as their personal bank account is overwhelming. They effectively looted the corporation by taking out more than $1 million in loans over a 13 month period rendering Play[S]afe effectively insolvent. Indeed, Play[S]afe had only been capitalized with a total of $700,000. The suggestion that these loans were approved by ‘independent directors’ is belied completely by the evidence.”
I will trust the Trial Court judges.
btw, the stock price has not been $.01 since 2009. Wishful thinking since Circ has no operations.
If the Beer Companies really were interested in Energy drinks they would have gotten in along time ago. The reality is that the beer companies have stopped distributing energy drinks to focus on Beer and now energy drink distribution is handled primarily by Coke and Pepsi. Helpful to understand facts and reality.
No one is going to buy this POS because the big boys do not need to add two additional flavors to their already successful product lines. Circ has nothing to offer the big boys so you might as well quit wasting time dreaming they might buy circ, which has no chance of happening. With Mr. Iehab in charge history will keep repeating itself.
The one constant is Mr. Iehab. History has and will repeat itself. Enough said.
They do not need two additional flavors.
Farky, no chance.
No way CIRC will have $100 million of sales, let alone of earnings. CIRC has no distribution channel. No Trademark. No manufacturing facilities.
Company Sales Distribution channel
Red Bull $3.4 Billion Red Bull
Monster $3.1 Billion Coca Cola
Rockstar $821 Million Pepsi
AMP $239 Million Pepsi
NOS $274 Million Coca Cola
Full Throttle $104 Million Coca Cola
CIRC will have to blow all of its funds to try to re-market it drink and investors will again be left with nothing.
C’mon Dupa. You still do not have the facts correct.
Circ’s 15 years of consecutive losses started way before their 2006 agreement with Playboy.
While CIRC was losing money from 2006 to 2011, it makes no sense that Playboy would want a license agreement to not succeed. Circ’s losses since 2006 are also the result of Mr. Iehab’s lack of management skill. The distribution network in 40 countries is worthless if you do not sell anything.
It was three of Playbev’s creditors (LIB-MP, George Denney and Warner Depuy) that filed the involuntary Chapter 7 petition in 2011 against Playbev seeking liquidation. That was not Playboy. That case was then converted to a voluntary Chapter 11 reorganization. In March 2012 Playboy and PlayBev extended the licensing agreement through July 31, 2012, to allow PlayBev and Playboy to negotiate a potential new licensing agreement.
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.”
Blame Mr. Iehab and yourself, not Playboy.
Who are you kidding? No way CIRC will fly north of the rest of the energy drink companies! CIRC has no distribution channel or marketing to compete.
Company Rev Estimates Distribution channel
Red Bull $3.4 Billion Red Bull
Monster $3.1 Billion Coca Cola
Rockstar $821 Million Pepsi
AMP $239 Million Pepsi
NOS $274 Million Coca Cola
Full Throttle $104 Million Coca Cola
Oh. Good to know Mr. Iehab is worried about important things.
..forbid Facebook or any other entities associated with Facebook from taking "any other actions against me...." hmm. What kind of actions?
Sparky – are you sure?
Just finished reviewing the Appellate court ruling in the Playsafe (Mr. Iehab and Fadi) vs United Medical Devices, in which the Appellate Court again ruled in favor of United Medical Devices. Alot of similarities.
If you have already forgotten, after an unproductive year, during which Playsafe (Mr. Iehab = Chairman, President & CEO and Fadi = Board Member) achieved no sales to a single consumer, United Medical Devices terminated Playsafe’s contract. Playsafe sued for breach of contract and fraud, seeking $10.5 million damages. Following a two-week trial, the jury found 12 to 0 against Playsafe on all its claims and awarded United Medical Devices the full $700,000 sought on its claim. United Medical Device’s principal Jimmy Esebag expressed his gratitude for the verdict: “Justice prevailed. The jury clearly saw through the story concocted by Playsafe’s principals Iehab Hawatmeh and Fadi Nora. For this we are grateful.”
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.”
Sound familiar?
Cirtran stated in its 2013K that:
“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.”
The appellate court also upheld the following statement from the trial court:
“In granting the motion, the trial court concluded that “the evidence that Hawatmeh and Nora abused the corporate structure of [PlaySafe] to, in effect, operate it as their personal bank account is overwhelming. They effectively looted the corporation by taking out more than $1 million in loans over a 13 month period rendering Play[S]afe effectively insolvent. Indeed, Play[S]afe had only been capitalized with a total of $700,000. The suggestion that these loans were approved by ‘independent directors’ is belied completely by the evidence.”
…. Sounding familiar?
A Jury trial ....
It is relevant - without profitable operations investors will not see any cash.
Hammy. These are the numbers for the cash that was used (squandered) by Mr. Iehab. The numbers I provided here are the uses of cash, not the losses.
Net Cash provided (Used) From Operations
2014 ? Circ made no royalty payments to Playboy
2013 467,339 Circ made no royalty payments to Playboy
2012 231,565 Circ made no royalty payments to Playboy
2011 (320,115)
2010 (688,240)
2009 (485,406)
2008 (5,282,822)
2007 (4,260,618)
2006 (1,842,401)
2005 (1,751,744)
2004 (1,680,054)
2003 (1,123,818)
2002 (1,142,148)
2001 (288,723)
2000 (276,983)
1999 (1,380,859)
Unprofitable companies rarely generate cash. Since 2011 Circ has made no royalty payments to Playboy even while selling the "licensed" product.
Net Cash provided (Used) From Operations
2014 ? Circ made no royalty payments to Playboy
2013 467,339 Circ made no royalty payments to Playboy
2012 231,565 Circ made no royalty payments to Playboy
2011 (320,115)
2010 (688,240)
2009 (485,406)
2008 (5,282,822)
2007 (4,260,618)
2006 (1,842,401)
2005 (1,751,744)
2004 (1,680,054)
2003 (1,123,818)
2002 (1,142,148)
2001 (288,723)
2000 (276,983)
CIRC has zero chance of successfully re-branding the formula, so the formula is worthless.
Winning the legal lottery will not raise the value of your shares, unless new investors are duped.
Congrats on the change. You obviously had a personality capable of change.
15 years of consecutive losses started way before Playboy lawsuit, which lawsuit was initiated after license (which was signed in 2006) was terminated in 2012. It's not Playboy's fault for 15 years of losses. It is Mr. Iehab's fault.
Dupa, you still do not have your facts correct.
Simply looks like the R/S was not approved by FINRA.
In the May 8, 2015 8-K that was filed by Cirtran, the Company states that:
"If required FINRA approval is not received in order for the reverse split to be effective on May 25, 2015, the Corporation will select another date and announce it publicly in a Current Report on Form 8-K."
Silence is Golden.
Mr. Iehab is not looking out for shareholders. Never has. Never will.
The CIRC profit train leaves the station every year ... it just never reaches its stated destination!
Loss from Operations
2014 ?
2013 (1,015,316)
2012 (375,813)
2011 (7,043,410)
2010 (1,015,316)
2009 (5,814,653)
2008 (3,911,212)
2007 (7,232,524)
2006 (2,854,369)
2005 (527,708)
2004 (658,322)
2003 (2,910,978)
2002 (2,149,810)
2001 (2,933,084)
2000 (2,791,888)
1999 (3,768,905)
C’mon Farky. Mr. Iehab has not learned a thing. 15 years of losses is indisputable proof. Mr. Iehab cannot change. His narcissistic personality gets in the way.
The reality is this:
1) Any money Circ receives you will see none of it unless you are an insider.
2) There is no chance of the stock increasing unless either the Company buys the stock back or duped investors buy in. There is no other way for the stock price to increase because the company has zero operations and no history of ever making a profit. None. Zero. Fact.
3) Circ will never be a $100 million company. Never. It has never been close to it, and since it has lost the trademark rights will have no operations. None. Zero. Zilch. Check the history – every single new idea over the years has been a failure. Yes everyone.
4) No experienced COO will work for this POS or with Mr. Iehab. Even Fadi resigned. Now he only has his crony Ms. Hollingsworth. 3 full-time employees. Wow.
5) History shows that investors in Circ lose money. 15 years of losses.
Loss from Operations
2014 ?
2013 (1,015,316)
2012 (375,813)
2011 (7,043,410)
2010 (1,015,316)
2009 (5,814,653)
2008 (3,911,212)
2007 (7,232,524)
2006 (2,854,369)
2005 (527,708)
2004 (658,322)
2003 (2,910,978)
2002 (2,149,810)
2001 (2,933,084)
2000 (2,791,888)
1999 (3,768,905)
6) The license agreement ended. It is described in the Company’s 10K filing.
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.”
No new buyers and you have no chance of your stock price increasing. No new buyers and you cannot sell. If you do not sell you have no exit plan.
Watch out for the next train wreck. It is always on time!
It’s actually very simple. There are 3 potential scenarios.
Scenario 1
Savvy Investors purchase CIRC stock with the expectation that CIRC operations will generate profits, which will in turn increase the value of the stock. We know from 15 years of losses (and counting) – all with Mr. Iehab running the show – such is not a reasonable expectation – especially given the likelihood that CIRC has lost the rights to use the Playboy Trademark. CIRC has no real operations. None. Zero.
Scenario 2
Investors purchase CIRC stock in anticipation that some sort of award / settlement proceeds will be used to purchase back stock or issue dividends, with the anticipation that the stock price will increase for current investors. Such is not likely for two reasons:
-Cannot count on Mr. Iehab to use the funds in such a manner. The likelihood is that Mr. Iehab will pay himself, pay all of his “related parties”, pay down debt, and squander the remaining funds – just like he has done previously.
-Such a scenario requires interested parties to then be willing to buy the stock. However, as noted in Scenario 1, with no viable operations and a history of losses, savvy investors will stay away.
Scenario 3
Which leaves the only remaining possibility that more non-savvy investors, those that have not done adequate due diligence, jumping in for a “quick” legal / settlement play (similar to current investors) so that current investors can unload the worthless CIRC stock, leaving the new investors holding the bag. A speculative proposition.
9/9 date has passed you by.
more like reality.
"The reason oral contracts and verbal agreements are often looked warily upon is that they tend to present difficulties when it comes to enforcement. Contracts that are clearly written and executed are easier to present as evidence in court than the testimony of the contractual parties. It is also challenging to dispel contract defects when they are not in writing. When oral contracts are taken to court, there is always a risk of one of the parties lying about the terms of the agreement. In some cases, all parties may choose to be dishonest about the terms of the contract and thus create a legal impasse for the courts."
The Law Dictiionary
The SEC cares.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is an agency of the United States federal government. It holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws, proposing securities rules, and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other activities and organizations, including the electronic securities markets in the United States.
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" (in the Senate) and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act" (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law.
The bill covers responsibilities of a public corporation’s board of directors, adds criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and requires the SEC to create regulations to define how public corporations are to comply with the law.
External auditors are required to issue an opinion on whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects by management. This is in addition to the financial statement opinion regarding the accuracy of the financial statements.
Besides annual losses the one other constant is Mr. Iehab.
Mr. Iehab tanked this company.
Loss from Operations
2014 ?
2013 (1,015,316)
2012 (375,813)
2011 (7,043,410)
2010 (1,015,316)
2009 (5,814,653)
2008 (3,911,212)
2007 (7,232,524)
2006 (2,854,369)
2005 (527,708)
2004 (658,322)
2003 (2,910,978)
2002 (2,149,810)
2001 (2,933,084)
2000 (2,791,888)
1999 (3,768,905)