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.
Not likely. The percentage of unanimous jury decisions overturned is miniscule.
This decision will stand.
Not meeting required performance objectives required for the continuation of the playboy license are FACTS which precipitated the termination of the license.
Cirtran itself acknowledged that it did not perform. 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.”
It is beyond unbelievable that Mr. Iehab and his legal counsel could not provide "all the facts" leading up to the trial ("exhibits filed"), and then during the trial itself. It would be comical if it was not so amazingly sad. Once again, another example of how completely inept Mr. Iehab is.
More Speculation and Nonsense.
Red Bull is, and always has been, a private company, so there is no way that anyone knows financial information about the company, other than the fact that the two original investors have stated that they each initially invested $500,000 in 1987. Red Bull has never publicly reported profit or losses.
Sparky needs to secure new independent counsel, because his counsel got it wrong. Mr. Iehab has lost 12-0 to United Medical Devices and to Playboy Enterprises 7 – 0. Mr. Iehab has been shut-out twice by two separate groups of reasonable jurors, who obviously listened to BOTH sides of the issues, and who unanimously ruled against Mr. Iehab.
Sparky's assessments have been wrong for years so why would anyone believe such nonsense about a $35 million award.
It is pure speculation that ajuror was paying attention to this stock board during the trial.
Mr. Iehab’s attorneys must have been inept if the other 6 members of the jury could be persuaded by 1 juror who allegedly (no one knows) was influenced by comments on this board (although my comments have all been based on facts and common sense).
So, who to believe – Sparky (who has been consistently wrong and full of speculation) or MFlores, who read Cirtran's 10ks that stated that the license agreement ended because Mr. Iehab failed to perform? Hmm.
It's over. Mr. Iehab has no other choice but to gasp at every last breath of air, but after a defeat of 7-0 and a 12-0 defeat with Playsafe, it's over. Reasonable juries have seen through Mr. Iehab's lies, deceit and law breaking and given him what he deserves.
Cirtran Company to File for New Trial in Suit vs. Playboy Enterprises
Posted: Oct 26, 2016 2:27 PM MDT
Updated: Oct 26, 2016 2:27 PM MDT
SALT LAKE CITY --(BUSINESS WIRE)
CirTran Beverage Corp., a subsidiary of CirTran Corporation (OTC BB: CIRC) and Play Beverages, LLC said today that a motion for a new trial and a Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict will be filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division in the ongoing litigation against Playboy Enterprises International, Inc..
CirTran Beverage and Play Beverages had brought suit against Playboy in 2012 regarding a contract and license to manufacture and market a line of energy drinks. CirTran Beverage and Play Beverages also brought non-contract claims against Playboy.
Iehab J. Hawatmeh, president of CirTran Beverage, said he and his legal team were also evaluating appellate options regarding the trial. Neither Mr. Hawatmeh nor CirTran Corporation was a party to the suit.
“CirTran Beverage and Play Beverages were extremely disappointed in the outcome of the trial,” he said, “but we do believe in the justice system and continue to believe that justice will be served.”
The law precedent exists so yes the Judge could have done so, but chose not to.
Both the Playsafe vs United Medical Devices and Playbev vs Playboy E were unanimous against Mr. Iehab (12 - 0 and 7- 0). In the Playsafe case Playsafe had zero sales. Why did that go to trial? Seems like it should not have. In this case, Playbev did not pay the required minimum royalties so a new license was not effective. Why did this go to jury? Should not have.
Bottom line - both cases were unanimous against Mr Iehab. Both were unanimous - obviously easy decisions for reasonable and law-abiding people - characteristics Mr. Iehab obviously does not possess.
The Judge Could Have Over Ruled the Jury - but didn't
The Judge could have over ruled the jury but, did not. Why? Mr. Iehab did not perform to the requirements of the trademark, and the license ended. Cirtran stated this in it's 2013 10K.
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.”
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law (formerly called a directed verdict).[1] In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal".[2]
JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings. This intervention, often requested[citation needed] but rarely granted, permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[3]
A judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases; such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, this action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution.
A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case, and the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.
Reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict, or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. This procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.
Sparky apparently knows per his post on the 25th.
Timing of Mistrial Order
A mistrial is defined as “either a trial that the judge brings to an end, without a determination on the merits, because of the procedural error or serious misconduct occurring during the proceedings, or a trial that ends inconclusively because the jury cannot agree on a verdict.” Redmond v. Socha, 216 Ill.2d 622 (2005).
“A motion for a mistrial is a procedural tool designed to cut short a trial for legal reasons which preclude a verdict and judgment.” McGrath v. Chicago & North Western, 1 90 Ill.App.3d 276 (1989). “This motion prevents parties from getting two chances at a verdict.” McGrath, 190 Ill.App.3d at 279.
A motion for a mistrial must be made before a verdict is rendered. It is untimely if it is made either after the verdict is rendered or a judgment is entered on the verdict.
“When the jury returns the unanimous verdict, a motion for a mistrial is untimely and inappropriate.” Redmond, 216 Ill.2d at 640.
Mistrial - Legal Dictionary
A judge may declare a mistrial for several reasons, including lack of jurisdiction, incorrect jury selection, or a deadlocked, or hung, jury. A deadlocked jury—where the jurors cannot agree over the defendant's guilt or innocence—is a common reason for declaring a mistrial. Extraordinary circumstances, such as death or illness of a necessary juror or an attorney, may also result in a mistrial. A mistrial may also result from a fundamental error so prejudicial to the defendant that it cannot be cured by appropriate instructions to the jury, such as improper remarks made during the prosecution's summation.
In determining whether to declare a mistrial, the court must decide whether the error is so prejudicial and fundamental that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful, if not futile. Although the judge has the power to declare a mistrial and discharge a jury, this power should be "exercised with great care and only in cases of absolute necessity" (Salvatore v. State of Florida, 366 So. 2d 745 [Fla. 1978], cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 177, 62 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1979]).
feel bad? Mr. Iehab squandered company friends and raped investors financially, all while enriching himself.
Sparky posted (on Saturday - 10/22/16 at around 12 noon) that a mistrial was to be filed ( prior to any published verdict.) That was prior to ajuror's posts.
btw, how did Sparky know? hmmm.........
Cirtran has no other business. No facilities, no electronic equipment, no employees, no money.
Distributors of what?
.....regardless of verdict = Playboy wins unanimously
.....motions have been filed for a mistrial = Mr. Iehab has no other option....
Mr. Iehab (Playsafe) lost 12 - 0 to United Medical Devices
Mr. Iehab (Playbev) lost 7 - 0 to Playboy Enterprises.
I see a trend = Mr. Iehab is a loser.
Hammy - Who is Mr. Iehab going to sue next?
He has no other hope, that is why.
The trademark is gone. He has nothing else. No one else is going to be interested in the energy drink - two flavors. Big deal. Cirtran already proved they cannot market the drink.
So, the 5 Cirtran employees took the taste test and 4 out of 5 of them preferred. Hmm.
Playsafe vs United Medical Devices is a more similar situation, in which the contract was terminated for nonperformance and Mr. Iehab sued. Mr Iehab lost when the jury found in favor of Jimmy Esebag 12 -0.
LOS ANGELES, May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- This past Monday April 29th, a Santa Monica jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of United Medical Devices and against Playsafe, LLC.
United Medical Devices had retained Playsafe as a distributor for brand condoms in various territories around the world, including among others the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Ukraine, Australia, and New Zealand.
After an unproductive year, during which Playsafe 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 in damages. United Medical Devices also sued Playsafe, seeking $700,000 due under the contract.
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 Devices' 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."
Iehab Hawatmeh serves as the Chairman, President & CEO and Fadi Nora is a board member of CirTran Corporation.
After 15 years of losses, Mr. Iehab should not be coaching any longer.
BTW, the beverage drink did not start until 2006, so there were plenty of losses prior to 2006.
....you remind me of the coach's son .... hmm.
Mr. Iehab has nothing else. He knows the trademark is going away and he will be left with nothing.
Invested because of Mr. Iehab's management skills? No profit in over 15 years? Yeah, he is resilient.
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)
Yeah, it unfortunate that Mr. Iehab's squandering company funds for personal benefit has negatively affected so many families and retired investors.
It was pretty easy in the Playsafe vs United Medical Services lawsuit. Unanimous jury vote of 12 - 0 against Mr. Iehab.
Subpeona Mr. Fadi. That would be "telling".
“"Despite its best efforts," Play Beverages acknowledges it failed to meet the minimum net sales required by its licensing agreement.’
Play Beverages, LLC, et al. v. Playboy Enterprices, Inc. et al.
Not a chance. Mr. Iehab might enrich himself again, but no chance the company makes any money. It never has:
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)
And by the way, your allusion to international distribution is pretty much non existent
Revenues
Country 2011 2012 2013
South America $1,042,539 $908,334 $884,320
India - 774,772 -
Middle East - 513,429 -
Africa - 494,418 -
Eastern Europe 329,600 399,204 397,029
China - 291,667 150
Western Europe 747,223 243,049 -
Canada 172,260 96,843 176,782
Other - 197,016 202,176
$2,291,622 $3,918,732 1,660,457
Definitely applicable
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.”
As upheld in PlaySafe vs UMD, "when there is no existing enforceable contract, a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relations will not lie."
Similar lawsuit patterns with Playsafe vs United Medical Services and Playbev vs Playboy.
Mr. Iehab does not perform:
Playsafe = no sales
Playbev = insufficient sales, no royalty payment by required deadline ($2,000,000)
License Terminated:
United Medical Services terminates license agreement with Mr. Iehab
Playboy terminates license agreement with Mr. Iehab
Mr. Iehab sues:
Mr. Iehab sues United Medical Services
Mr. Iehab sues Playboy
Jury “of Peers” rules against Mr. Iehab:
Jury rules 12-0 in favor of United Medical Services
Jury rules in favor of ………. Playboy.
Nope. You've got the 48 hour thing all wrong. The SEC rule requires executives to report trades in their own company's stock within 48 hours.
Insider trading rules bar trading on material non-public information. There has been no public announcement of anything (the last public release was in 2014) so no trading can be related to any non-public information.
Too many "ifs".
Playbev filed involuntary bankruptcy in April 2011 as a result of a lawsuit by Playbev creditors.
From the Cirtran 2011 10K:
On April 26, 2011, three alleged creditors, LIB-MP Beverage, LLC, George Denney, and Warner K. Depuy, filed an involuntary Chapter 7 petition against Play Beverages, LLC, a consolidated entity of our subsidiary (“PlayBev”), seeking its liquidation. Thereafter, management decided that reorganizing PlayBev as a debtor-in-possession under Chapter 11, of Title 11, of the United States Bankruptcy Code, was in the best interests of PlayBev and its creditors and equity holders. Accordingly, on August 12, 2011, PlayBev consented to the entry of an order for relief in the pending involuntary bankruptcy case and immediately exercised its right under Section 706(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to convert the case to a voluntary Chapter 11 reorganization case. That same day, the court entered an Order for Relief under Chapter 11 based on PlayBev’s elections.
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.”
The Playboy license was terminated.
There is no distribution channel. In the largest market in the world you cannot find the product.
Cirtran is suing the distributors they had in the U.S. for the distributors "allegedly" striking a deal directly with Playboy.
Cirtran could not meet the requirements of the royalty arrangement. That is why Playboy terminated Playbev.
...energy drinks
With no trademark license don't think so. Price has not been that high since 2011.
Given a similar trial result as the Playsafe vs United Medical Devices trial, with not license there will be no 2017.
Mr. Iehab’s Management creativity:
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
I am sure he has because he already stated that the license was terminated.
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.”
Operationally, no chance Mr. Iehab can operate Circ profitability. He never has. So what is going to change now?
Losses
2016 ?
2015 ?
2014 ?
2013 $(1,015,316)
2012 (1,787,643)
2011 (7,043,410)
2010 (2,972,488)
2009 (4,342,761)
2008 (4,205,916)
2007 (4,801,900)
2006 (2,667,164)
2005 (527,708)
2004 (1,876,333)
2003 $(2,523,665)
.... desperation..
Mr. Iehab has nothing else so he is fighting to the death.... sad.
Why arbitrate if you expect to win at trial (similar to United Medical Devices)?
United Medical Devices had retained Playsafe (Mr. Iehab) as a distributor for brand condoms in various territories around the world, including among others the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Ukraine, Australia, and New Zealand.
After an unproductive year, during which Playsafe (Mr. Iehab) achieved no sales to a single consumer, United Medical Devices terminated Playsafe's contract. Playsafe (Mr. Iehab) sued for breach of contract and fraud, seeking $10.5 million in damages. United Medical Devices also sued Playsafe, seeking $700,000 due under the contract.
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 Devices' 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."
Mr. Iehab pay a higher royalty? He hasn't even paid the previous royalties. No way Playboy is going to agree to that - they already know he will not pay.
Let's see the financials and then we can see what kind of international distribution network there is.
...means nothing without an authorized license 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.”
There is no evidence of Cirtran sales or "global distribution" - there has not been a financial filing since November 2014. All speculation.
Not a chance.