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.
If they had the public filings would not show the liabilities from discontinued operations. since the liabiltiies are still there they have not paid them.
No chance.
The last Qtrly report: $1,719 in cash. No sales in 2019 or 2018. Still owe Playboy $26 million.
Nothing here.
$7,000 in cash, $37 million in current liabilities....do not be fooled.
As long as the appeal continues, the Corporation will not be dissolved.
As long as the corporation is an entity, the shares of the company are legitimate ownership of the company - the shares simply cannot be traded publicly. A shareholder can privately sell their shares to another - happens all of the time with privately-held companies.
If the appeal process fails again (which is likely), then the citation will continue and the company will fold. Mr. Iehab has no other products (never did) so there are no business operations left, leaving no way to pay the millions of $ he owes to Playboy.
Case Has Been Ordered Disposed and assigned to Tax/Misc Remedies Section
Maybe Sparky and Hammy can tell us what it all means.
Citation to Discover Assets
A Citation to Discover Assets
If a creditor sues you for money and wins, the court gives the creditor a judgment against you. The judgment tells how much money you owe the creditor and orders you to pay it.
Following the judgment, the creditor may try to collect the money you owe by requiring you to appear before the court for a Citation to Discover Assets. During this proceeding, the creditor wants to discover the amount of your income and the value of your property that he can seize to collect the money you owe. The court may require that you bring to the hearing certain financial documents including tax returns, bank statements, and payroll stubs.
The Citation to Discover Assets Creates an Automatic Lien
The creditor will send you written notice spelling out your legal rights, as well as the date and time of your court hearing. The date of the hearing is called the return date. At that time, you must appear in court and answer questions asked by your creditor's lawyer relating to your income and property. If you don't come to the hearing - or if you don't have the documents that were requested - the judge could have you arrested and charged with contempt of court.
Once a Citation to Discover Assets is issued, a lien is automatically placed on all of your nonexempt property. This means you cannot make or allow any transfers of your nonexempt property. If you do, you may be subject to court penalties for failing to obey the citation.
If the creditor serves your bank with a Citation to Discover Assets, then the bank must freeze all of your accounts unless the funds are exempt. Then the bank must appear in court and you should attend the hearing to assert your rights of exemption. The bank may not give money to your creditor without a court order.
remedial math: any percent of $0 is still equal to $0.
God could care less about this. Mr. Iehab's choices deserve their just rewards - $7,000,000 in payments.
Playboy needs customers to pay per contract. Playbev could not and never did. Playboy wants nothing to do with Playbev.
The right thing to do is uphold the unanimous decision that Playbev infringed the trademark.
To do nothing but suggest "potential" positive results, and not include the most likely scenario, is flat-out misleading propaganda at its best.
Good idea - let's just wait to hear the next public news releases. I am all in if you are.
The more likely scenario is that the Judge will uphold the jury verdict over which he presided.
Mr. Iehab and his accomplice Fadi Nora appealed the Playsafe vs United Medical Devices and lost each one of the multiple appeals. So much for confidence.
"The judgment is affirmed. The postjudgment order adding Iehab Hawatmeh and Fadi Nora as additional judgment debtors is affirmed."
Cirtran attorneys knew that a reasonable jury would find in favor of Cirtran and the jury did not. So obviously, the attorneys have been wrong before.
....Sparklefarkle... maybe?
Much of Cirtran's short-term liabilities were related party short-term notes. Probably they are footing the bill because if they don't they have no chance of getting their money out.
Perhaps the attorneys are working for minimal fees with the arrangement that they will get 50% of any settlement.
The Company is not selling stock - if so, the Company would have to file that they are doing so.
Mr. Iehab is not selling stock - if so, he would have to file that he is selling - and he has not filed anything (unless he is selling his own stock and not filing required paperwork).
Mr. Iehab has nothing else so of course he is going to fight tooth and nail because he as no other options.
Everyone knows the appeal process - that is nothing new
The facts are the facts, and a respectable Judge or group of Judges will see through Mr. Iehab's bs, just like in the Playsafe vs United Medical Devices case. These two cases, in which Mr. Iehab lost both on all counts, clearly show what kind of character Mr. Iehab possesses.
Mr. Iehab cannot accept that he does not know how to manage. So he sues to try to get what he could not earn.
What do you think?
Loss from Operations
2016 ?
2015 ?
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)
Pure speculation, just like before the jury trial.
Of course the case is going to be taken under advisement. The Judge has to determine if there is evidence for a mistrial. Doubt it. The facts were presented. The facts remain the same. Mr. Iehab did not perform. The license ended. Mr. Iehab violated the license. Mr. Iehab lost, just like in the PlaySafe vs United Medical devices. Mr Iehab owes big time.
From the last report back in 2014, Cirtran had more than $21 million in CURRENT liabilities - current bills that need to be paid.
There are no new products. Flat irons, grills, exercise equipment? There is nothing.
You have had your day, and lost.
Agreed. The press release is not clear and seems to be a waste of time.
The statement "In the injunction order, the Court agreed with the jury's findings....." Is this a new court order or simply old news of the original injunction based on the original jury verdicts?
What matters is the judge's decision as to whether there is a mistrial. Doubt there will be - given the facts - but that decision is what matters.
Wow. You still have the facts wrong. I posted on this board, repeatedly, that, like Playsafe vs United Medical Devices, Mr. Iehab would lose the jury trial. That is what happened. Mr. Iehab lost on all counts.
Not necessarily. International distributor might be acting on its own. Only if the International Distributor pays Mr. Iehab the royalties does Mr. Iehab get anything. And no one knows if that is taking place.
Would be a huge risk if Mr. Iehab accepts any royalty payments.
As long as there is an appeal process there is hope. However, in this case, given that the facts remain the same, not much.
ALL counts were ruled in favor of Playboy. Each and EVERY juror heard and understood the facts. Mr. Iehab did not perform. The trademark ended. Mr. Iehab violated the trademark.
Folks - the facts remain the same.
- Mr. Iehab and Playbev did not perform.
- Rights to use the trademark ended.
- Mr. Iehab sued.
- Mr. Iehab violated the trademark.
- Mr. Iehab lost on all counts.
- Mr. Iehab owes $6,700,000 for trademark infringement.
It is very simple. Mr. Iehab did not pay the royalties owed and the new license agreement did become effective. Mr Iehab himself stated the following:
“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.” (Cirtran’s 2013 10K)
Just like in Playsafe vs United Medical Devices, (which Mr. Iehab also lost) Mr. Iehab did not perform, and lost the trademark rights.
Mr. Iehab should step down as CEO, President, and CFO. He has never managed Cirtran to profitability:
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)
The facts remain the same.
LOL - Playboy's not going to settle. They already won the first jury trial.
Playbev had ample opportunity to prove its case in the first trial, and did not.
Once again, facts will prevail:
- Mr. Iehab and Playbev did not perform.
- Rights to use the trademark ended.
- Mr. Iehab violated trademark.
- Mr. Iehab sued.
- Mr. Iehab lost on all counts.
- Mr. Iehab owes $6,700,000 for trademark infringement.
Nothing changes the facts.
More speculation.
Looks like Miller Shakman Beem LLP is still representing Playboy Enterpises, which bodes well for Playboy.
Look for all of the motions to be struck down.
Judgment Proof
A creditor can garnish your wages, place a levy on your bank account, and/or place a lien against any real estate that you own. However, if you don't have any income or property that the creditor can legally go after, then you are what is often referred to as judgment proof.
Everyone knows Cirtran has no cash, no operations, no assets, so yes Cirtran looks to be judgment proof.
Same goes for Playbev.
Mr. Iehab, a principal of Playbev, has a nice home at 3271 Deer Hollow Dr in Sandy Utah (check our Google maps) that would go along way in paying the $6,700,000 obligation.
The docket shows that both Playbev and Cirtran Beverage each received a $5,000,000 judgment, with Play Beverages receiving an additional $1,600,000 on top of the $5,000,000.
Somebody will pay.
As a principal of Playbev, Mr. Iehab is on the hook for the $7,000,000.
"Effective January 1, 2010, PlayBev was required to be consolidated into the financial statements of the Company as a variable interest entity. PlayBev holds a license agreement with Playboy Enterprises, Inc. ("Playboy") to market, manufacture and distribute energy drinks and beverages under their brand name." (Cirtran 2010 10K)
"Under the terms of the PlayBev agreement, we {Cirtran} are to provide the initial development and promotional services to PlayBev, who will collect from us {Cirtran} a royalty based on product sales and manufacturing costs once licensed product distribution commences." (Cirtran 2010 10K)
Cirtran has no operations (or source of income) with the trademark gone.
Oh yeah, you have been wrong so many times now that your speculations are no longer believable.
Since Mr. Iehab could not win the court case using facts, he now has to resort to any action possible even though there is no evidence of impropriety.
The facts still remain - Mr. Iehab did not perform. The trademark rights were rescinded. The Jury ruled against Mr. Iehab. Mr. Iehab owes $7 million.
Court system allows for appeals. Will result is similar outcome.
Regardless of the lawsuit outcome? Mr. Iehab owes $7,000,000. Playbev is bankrupt if the lawsuit is sustained (which is likely). Without the drink, Cirtran has no other source of revenue. None.
Cirtran owns what manufacturing? Mr. Iehab sold the electronics equipment (read the 10k's). Mr. Iehab stated that the focus was on the beverage with higher margins (in otherwords, he could not be profitable in the electronics business).
Mr. Iehab has not made a profit ever (check the history if you do not believe me). Does not matter what the product. Mr. Iehab = More Losses.
"tienes razon"
Cirtran website now shows "Under Construction. Be back soon."
hmm. No George Foreman grills, or hair straighteners to sell?
What about all of the contract electronics business?
Wrong again.
Once again, your speculation is wrong. Flat out incorrect.
More reckless speculation ...
... allow jurors access to ihub ... (if that was the case - I do not believe it - why did the jurors not believe everything that you and Hammy posted?)
....Playboy agrees that they did "devious tasks" ... yeah right. Why did the Jury not take that into consideration?
....insinuating that the jury was biased? How? because ajuror read ihub? ridiculous.
...insinuating that the jury did not apply the law? That is what the Judge was there for. Appears that your perceptions are the ones that are biased...
...we could have swayed the jury ..... more speculation.
FACTS: Playbev did not perform. The license ended.
not much can sway the facts.
State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.
For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.
Federal Court Jury Verdicts: Must be Unanimous
There are two court systems in the United States: federal and state courts. Each covers different types of cases. In the federal system, whether the trial is criminal or civil, the jury must reach a unanimous verdict.
The key point is that Mr. Iehab has lost 7 -0 (Playboy Enterprises) and 12 -0 (United Medical Devices). He has been "shut-out". He has not won one single count in either case. Not one.
Bankruptcy next.
You still don't get it.