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.
More Litigation to come!
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.
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.
How many months does it take to complete the 2014 Year end Audit? 8 months is not enough time?
Playbev sued Playboy Oct 29, 2012, which is less than three years ago, not the 7 years that you misrepesented.
Playbev went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2011. 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.”
Since Mr. Iehab could not meet necessary requirements, Playboy did not renew the license. What is Mr. Iehab’s response? Same one as with Playsafe – litigate.
The past 15 years of losses are clearly the responsibility of Mr. Iehab. Mr. Iehab is clearly responsible for Cirtran’s results. He is the President, Chief Executive Officer, Director, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer.
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)
There is zero evidence that Mr. Iehab can produce profits in the future, especially given the likelihood that the energy-drink license will be revoked. The chance that any funds Cirtran receives will go to shareholders is very small.
Mr. Iehab's lack of management ability is what has brought this company (and investors) to it's knees - 15 years of history is proof.
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)
Nothing can change this fact. Nothing. Not even you Farky.
referring to the inflated quota with Mexico.....
Check with the editor of the law360.com article directly.
Nothing has changed - the status of the license agreement still has to be determined.
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.
still confused.
You are still confused.
Fantasy.
This deal was doomed from the start. Playboy did not kill this deal.
Juan Garcia appears to be the Mexican equivalent of Mr. Iehab. Mr. Juan is listed as Director, CEO, General Manager (and who knows what else?) of Factor Tequila SA DE CV, which was established in 2006, and listed as having between 5 – 10 employees, with no apparent manufacturing or distribution capabilities.
Any sensible and reasonable Judge or Jury will clearly understand that no two-year old company, with under 10 employees and no proven beverage industry track record, is going to achieve an average of $48 million a year in sales over 10 years. Such an unrealistic agreement was set by two larger-than-life CEO’s with no proven experience in the beverage industry.
This is a distribution agreement with an unrealistically-inflated sales quota in an attempt to make both parties appear larger than reality.
Total speculation.
“The only accounting method accepted by the generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. is the accrual basis accounting method. This method applies the matching principle by recording revenue when it is earned and expenses as they occur. The GAAP is put together by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Any accountant or CPA who presents a financial statement must follow these standards. Accrual basis is the method of accounting for revenue and expenses when they are earned or incurred, regardless of when cash actually is deposited in the company’s account.“
Surely Judge Pantle would want Cirtran to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as required by the SEC for reporting financial statements by a public company. Payments are a completely separate matter than accruals. Cirtran is required to follow accrual accounting for reporting even during the litigation. Maybe one of the reasons Cirtran has not filed since the 3rd quarter of 2014.
"... no royalties shall be paid ..." Paid and accrued are two different matters. Judge Pantle said nothing about royalties not being accrued. The Cirtran Royalties due to Playboy need to be accrued on its balance sheet if Cirtran is going to recognize the revenues on its income statement. Basic accounting.
... unless the contract was never in force, in which case Cirtran has no business selling the product with the Rabbit head trademark....
Nope.
Mr. Iehab stated that the reason he got rid of the legacy contract manufacturing business was ... “Along with an immediate expected positive impact on our bottom line, the new CirTran will be better able to focus on areas where we are and can be most successful.”
As long as Mr. Iehab is leading the way expect the same results. 15 years and counting!
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)
Thrive again? LOL. When has Circ thrived?
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)
Mr. Iehab has been screwing investors for 15 years. Seems like you would care since he will screw you again.
If you record the revenue you have to accrue the associated costs. Basic accounting. Accruals are different than payments.
Just in case the newbies did not know, 15 years in a row 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)
It's Mr. Iehab that is not doing you any favors. 15 years of losses and no good news. That is the problem here.
Hey, when you get a chance to drop by again, see if you can speak with Katana's CEO and ask if he is helping his brother since Mr. Iehab and Circ apparently have no cash.
Common sense says the $2 million is the base royalty amount, similar to previous years as reported in official filings, but since Circ is not transparent in it filings (still has yet to file the 2014 10K or the 2015 Qtr 1 filing) it is difficult to say definitively. However, common sense, which the "longs" appear to have lost, says that such is the case.
The $2,000,000 was likely the annual royalties that CIRC had agreed to pay in the first place but had failed to pay (earlier filings show royalty expense in the $2 million range), and so for the trademark license to be continued Circ needed to pay what they had agreed to pay in the first place. Circ couldn't do it.
To think that Circ will generate profits in the future when it hasn't the past 15 years is foolishness. Whether you like it or not, that is the reality.
"Insanity; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein
The truth is Cirtran had losses prior to Beverage, and the reason was the same reason Cirtran has had losses with Beverage - Mr. Iehab. He is the one constant. Cirtran had 2006 - 2010 to make something happen and Mr. Iehab failed. The bus tours, the parties, etc. failed. In 2011 when Playbev could not meet the reorganization plan, Playboy decided not to renew the agreement.
Honestly, as long as Mr. Iehab is involved there will be 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)
To think otherwise you are fooling yourself.
Cirtran divested it "legacy electronic manufacturing business" per the 8k filed on March 5, 2010.
On March 5, 2010, CirTran Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and KATANA ELECTRONICS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company (“KATANA”) entered into certain agreements related to the Company’s divestiture of its legacy electronic manufacturing business (the “Divestiture Agreements”). The Divestiture Agreements include an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Sublease Agreement and Equipment Lease.
The Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated March 5, 2010, between the Company and KATANA (the “Assignment Agreement”) sets forth the terms and conditions of the Company’s transfer of its right, title, interest, obligations and duties in, under and to all of the Company’s open and active purchase orders relating to its legacy electronics manufacturing business existing as of March 5, 2010 (the “Purchase Orders”). In exchange for the assignment of Purchase Orders, KATANA agreed to assume all obligations under and service the Purchase Orders and indemnify the Company from any losses or claims arising from or under the Purchase Orders as of the date of the Assignment Agreement.[color=red][/color]
The expectation was that there were likely to be losses, not profit.
Just because Katana maintains a website does not mean that it is profitable. Look at Cirtran - it has a website and it is not profitable:
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)
Cirtran's press release said the following about the "transfer of rights". In essence Mr. Iehab did not want to deal with an unprofitable electronics business. He did not have enough money to support it.
The ‘New CirTran’ Will Focus on Areas of Growth and Profitability
SALT LAKE CITY, March 12, 2010 -- CirTran Corporation (OTCBB: CIRC) said today that it has successfully transferred its rights and responsibilities to CirTran’s open and active purchase orders relating to its legacy electronics contract manufacturing business to new owners who will lease equipment and space, allowing a slimmed-down CirTran to focus on areas of growth and profitability.
Iehab J. Hawatmeh, CirTran’s President and CEO, said the company will concentrate its “energy, resources and efforts on areas of major growth and maximum profit potential. The ‘new CirTran’,” he said, “will benefit from having shed the burden of financing and housing our contract manufacturing business in the U.S. while we look to grow elsewhere.”
Mr. Hawatmeh said that CirTran transferred its rights and responsibilities to the open and active purchase orders relating to its legacy contract manufacturing business to Katana Electronics, LLC, a Utah limited liability company. Katana is headed by Shaher Hawatmeh, the previous COO of CirTran from 1995 until forming the new company.
CirTran’s Hawatmeh said Katana has leased some 19,000-square feet of manufacturing space as well as electronic equipment. In addition, he said Katana is retaining CirTran employees who worked in the contract manufacturing area, calling it “a seamless transition for one and all.”
“With this strategic move, CirTran will reduce costs dramatically while generating revenue as a landlord and by leasing equipment,” Mr. Hawatmeh said. “Along with an immediate expected positive impact on our bottom line, the new CirTran will be better able to focus on areas where we are and can be most successful.”
‘Growing What is Already Growing’
CirTran, Mr. Hawatmeh said, will channel its energies “on growing what is already growing,” citing in particular the company’s Playboy Energy Drink product line, consumer products manufactured by CirTran-Asia, and its efforts to develop and expand its mass merchant retail channels in the U.S.
Playboy Energy Drink is manufactured and distributed by CirTran Beverage Corp. on behalf of Play Beverages, LLC, a licensee of Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., in conjunction with CirTran Beverage Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of CirTran. Launched through test marketing campaigns in late 2007, Playboy Energy Drink is available in 8.4- and 16-ounce sizes in both regular and sugar free, and is available at bars, restaurants and retail stores in the U.S. as well as in 11 countries in Europe and the Middle East.
In addition to expanding beverage sales, CirTran will focus on gaining contract to manufacture high-volume electronics, fitness equipment and household products for the multi-billion dollar sold-on-TV/direct response and online markets. Mr. Hawatmeh said that the company will also “work to leverage its relationships with major international retailers to bring a mix of CirTran products to shelves in the U.S. and around the world.”
Farky, no way Katana and Circ are at all tied together. Any such transactions between Katana and Mr. Iehab would have to be reported, and nothing has been reported. If it is going on and Mr. Iehab is not reporting it (which is unlikely) then Mr. Iehab is breaking laws which will eventually catch up to him. I doubt that is happening. He already has the IRS watching him because of the unpaid payroll taxes. So quit feeding the board a bunch of absolute b.s.
How is little brother taking care of big brother Iehab? Renting him office space?
How was the Katana split clever? If Circ and Katana were tied together CIRC would have to report such as Related Party, which they have not. CIRC is out of electronics per their 10k's
What new products? Which one of the 3 employees is developing products? Mr. Iehab's secretary? There is no R&D expense being reported because there are no products being developed.
He survived the losses the last years by issuing stock to pay bills.
So since there is no press report communication, that means that there is no good news. Exactly. There has not been any good news for 15 years and counting:
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)
Do not use the public reply option. Use the private reply instead. Simple.
hmm .... trademark infringement?
It is Cirtran's Financials and internal projections that should be provided.
From Utah.gov
KATANA ELECTRONICS, LLC
Entity Number: 7385422-0160
Company Type: LLC - Domestic
Address: 4125 SOUTH 6000 WEST WEST VALLEY CITY, UT 84128
State of Origin:
Registered Agent: SHAHER HAWATMEH
Registered Agent Address:
4125 SOUTH 6000 WEST
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT 84128
View Management Team
Status: Active
Cirtran does not manage the building anymore. The 10K says that they sublease from Katana.
Cirtran has 3 full time employees.
From the 2013 10K:
As of May 9, 2014, 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.
Let's hope you and Farky are right this time because so far all of your speculation and promises have not materialized.
Does not change the reality that under Mr. Iehab the company has lost money for 15 straight years, even before the Energy drink circus:
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)
Operationally, nothing will change as long as Mr. Iehab remains the President, CEO, Director, and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer.
A reasonable man (Mr. Iehab), who has overseen 16 years of losses as CEO, would resign.
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)
A reasonable man (jury) will see through the charade just like the jury in the Playsafe trial did.
A reasonable man (investor) will know that Mr. Iehab does not care about you and will get out just like Fadi Nora did.
Mr. Iehab only knows how to litigate for money since he cannot manage a company and make money.
A perfect example is Playsafe, whose two principals are Mr. Iehab and Fadi Nora. United Medical Devices retained Playsafe as a distributor for brand condoms. 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. Following a two-week trial the jury found 12 to 0 against Playsafe on all of its claims. Jimmy Esebag indicated that “the Jury clearly saw through the story concocted by Playsafe’s principals Iehab Hawatmeh and Fadi Nora.”
Cirtran was contracted by Playbev to arrange for the manufacture, marketing and distribution of Playboy-licensed energy drinks, flavored water beverages, and related merchandise through various distribution channel. The agreement was set to expire March 31, 2012, and contained a renewal term of five years.
Playbev went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2011. 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.”
Since Mr. Iehab could not meet necessary requirements, Playboy did not renew the license. What is Mr. Iehab’s response? Same one as with Playsafe – litigate, since he cannot manage.
Mr. Iehab is clearly responsible for Cirtran’s results. He is the President, Chief Executive Officer, Director, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer.
Results since 1999 are clear evidence that Mr. Iehab, as CEO and CFO cannot manage.
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)
Mr. Iehab only knows how to litigate for money since he cannot manage a company and make money.
A perfect example is Playsafe, whose two principals are Mr. Iehab and Fadi Nora. United Medical Devices retained Playsafe as a distributor for brand condoms. 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. Following a two-week trial the jury found 12 to 0 against Playsafe on all of its claims. Jimmy Esebag indicated that “the Jury clearly saw through the story concocted by Playsafe’s principals Iehab Hawatmeh and Fadi Nora.”
Cirtran was contracted by Playbev to arrange for the manufacture, marketing and distribution of Playboy-licensed energy drinks, flavored water beverages, and related merchandise through various distribution channel. The agreement was set to expire March 31, 2012, and contained a renewal term of five years.
Playbev went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2011. 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.”
Since Mr. Iehab could not meet necessary requirements, Playboy did not renew the license. What is Mr. Iehab’s response? Same one as with Playsafe – litigate, since he cannot manage.
Mr. Iehab is clearly responsible for Cirtran’s results. He is the President, Chief Executive Officer, Director, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer.
Results since 1999 are clear evidence that Mr. Iehab, as CEO and CFO cannot manage.
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)
It is up to FINRA to approve the r/s. Maybe FINRA is not going to approve the decision to protect investors.
There was no contract.
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.”
Not sure what is so hard to understand. The Playboy license was not in effect.