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.
Did not know Friday ended at .054 so glad I got 178,400 shares at .03 and .0313 last week! Appreciate you bashers from time to time! LOL
CEO does not get anything unless he gets the funds from the judgment and neither do we.
I believe Herbert is still actively working on it so definitely not counting on him winning, after all these years, but sure hope he pulls a rabbit out of the hat!!
I have cash, no 2nd mortgage needed. :)
Enthusiasm not dwindling... accumulating as much as possible at these prices. :)
There was no pump by anyone. Suppositions, at best.
Perhaps the company has been consistently pursuing the $16M judgment this whole time and doing so quietly is advantageous to their collection of the funds.
The attempt by whoever to seek custodianship might have been an effort to take control believing that the past, and still current, management had given up? No idea what the motive was but I believe Mr. Leeming fought hard for years to win the judgment and will continue to fight hard to collect. Not an easy collection with limited funds against a wealthy, powerful entity.
These are just my opinions but the reaction to the custodianship was swift and telling, imo.
Hello all... I took a break after the stock price, and my account value, fell to a horrible level. It is still extremely bad but way better than the .0001-.0002 range!
Hoping for continued improvement and merger news would be great!
Have a great weekend and will not be as active as before but will start paying more attention.
Not yet... still working on it.
What I believe is Margaret is greedy and she came back, took over CUBV, went to court to get the satisfaction reversed, and want to get paid! So it is my hope that greed will cause her to get this stock trading again!
You got a better explanation for why she did what she did, please let me know.
Expert Market... How to get back to trading on Pink Sheets/etc... Not happy like the rest of you that the company did not get the financials filed on time but while the stock trading is taking a break, perhaps the company is working on SOMETHING to get us trading again or merged with another company. Think about this... why would Margaret give herself 5 BILLION restricted shares if she did not have intentions for this stock to trade again soon? Again... NOT HAPPY!
https://www.olshanlaw.com/blogs-Securities-Law-Blog,more-than-2-000-publicly-traded-companies
"A company pushed down to the Expert Market would be able to apply for relisting on OTC Markets Group once a market maker has filed a new Form 211 with FINRA, and the company has made current public information available. This requires a company to locate a market maker to file a Form 211 on its behalf and, once the form is filed, there is no set timeframe for a re-application approval. When compliance with the amended rule is demonstrated, relisting can occur.
I spoke with George Morgan yesterday and he assured me again that there was a lithium deal in the works and, yes, when he started getting threatening calls, emails, letters, he did walk away.
Shareholders can believe what they want but I believe what he said. I also talked with him right after he resigned and he said the same thing about the lithium company efforts.
I also believe we will see the financials on OTC as it makes no sense Margaret/etc would go thru the expense of completing them, posting them on the website, and not follow thru with filing with OTC. Guess we will see soon enough...
Well I just did and will continue to do so. Sharp is a cancer wherever he goes and he has made his intentions very clear about CUBV.
If he is such a stock wizard, sell your CUBV shares and spend your millions on his stocks cause he is not taking control of CUBV.
LOL... "I would even suggest that they offer to turn the company over to him to run. Not sure if Sharp would bother, but if he would, it would help us all out. Sharp moves slowly, but he does things right."
No, he does not do anything right.
Why the sudden buying... .0014 - .0015, up 30% when it was down to .0009 initially today?
BW... We have no choice but to 'support' Margaret Willett as she is in control of CUBV at this time. But I agree with you that if I had assigned my judgment over to George Morgan, I would be checking frequently to see what he was doing to get it collected.
She might have been doing that and once she saw Morgan posted the judgment was satisfied and no longer a debt to CUBV, that is when she took action.
Thanks hardlesson... Margaret's investment was $150,000 which she said she lost it all so how did she end up with a judgment of $282,000? Pretty nice return...
Nate... I thought George Morgan came in because his mom got shafted by Alex.
I believe when Margaret filed her complaint against Morgan, she already had her plan for the company or was finalizing it so it has been longer than the 9 days mentioned previously.
I believe the removal of Morgan as CEO is an oversite and it will be done soon, just as the twitter account still has the two tweets regarding the satisfaction of the $282k liability.
Filing a SEC complaint, especially if enough people do it, has a chance of making a difference with CUBV’s chance of survival. As a shareholder, I do not want George Sharp continuing to impact my stock and I sure as h@ll do not want him have any control of the company. I filed 2 complaints on the two links I provided previously. Still need to do the same for my daughter’s account.
If you are not willing to file, then stop complaining…
For me, the jury is still out on George Morgan. It appears he did a lot of good for CUBV... not sure what all he did that was bad other than what Margaret is saying.
Suing is a profession... geez!
Nate... Read these tweets below regarding when "new management" was tweeted and the tweet about CUBV having control of their twitter acct. And the libelous statements... wonder who that was? LOL
Cuba Beverage Company
@CubaBevCompany
Jun 30, 2020
We are pleased to announce that George W. Morgan has been appointed as the acting President / CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Cuba Beverage Co. Inc.
Cuba Beverage Company
@CubaBevCompany
Jun 30, 2020
It has come to our attention that someone has issued a series of libelous statements about our Company. Do not believe a word of it, none of it is true. The Company is navigating through some rough seas right now due to the pandemic, but will survive.
Cuba Beverage Company
@CubaBevCompany
Jun 10, 2020
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic banks and lending institutions all tightened lending standards. As a result Cuba Beverage Co., lost a major funding source. Notwithstanding, our managing director has secured funding from a private source. We will be fully funded in 10 business days.
Cuba Beverage Company
@CubaBevCompany
Jun 9, 2020
Cuba Beverage Co. is pleased to announce that we have retained the services of the law firm of Barnett and Linn as corporate counsel.
Cuba Beverage Company
@CubaBevCompany
May 29, 2020
Company under new management and will release details of it's re-organization as soon as possible.
Cuba Beverage Company
@CubaBevCompany
May 27, 2020
This Twitter feed is now under the control of the Officers and Directors of the Cuba Beverage Company.
Here is Morgan's Declaration that goes along with the previous filing:
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE
GEORGE SHARP Case No. 37-2020-00019244-CL-BC-CTL
Plaintiff, DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
vs. JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
CUBA BEVERAGE COMPANY MARK HAGEN; MARGARET WILLETT Date: January 21, 2022 AND DOES, 1-500 INCLUSIVE
Time: 09:00 a.m.
Dept. 75, Hon. James A Mangione
Defendant’s Trial Date: 03/18/2022
I, George W. Morgan, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am the current President of the Defendant in the above entitled action, CUBA Beverage Co. Inc., and make this declaration in my capacity as the President, CEO, and, Chairman of the Board of Directors
.
2. On April 15, 2020, as the then acting Executive Director, I attended a conference call between the then acting president, the former secretary, Margaret Willett, a former affiliate, and the
Plaintiff in this action, George Sharp. At that time, Mr. Sharp was notified that his employ with CUBA Beverage Co. was terminated and his contract rescinded effective immediately.
3. I respectfully submit that no breach of contract on the part of CUBA Beverage Company ever occurred as Plaintiff alleges. The Officers and Directors of the Company discovered that Plaintiff had set up a number of accounts in the name of CUBA Beverage without their authority,
knowledge or consent.
4. Company Officers and Directors further discovered that they had no access to these accounts whereas Plaintiff held the pass codes which he refused to share with the Company.
5. These accounts included, a Twitter account on which Plaintiff made public announcements which were false and did not align with the Company objectives, and did so without the authority, knowledge or consent of the Officers and/or Directors of the Company.
6. Moreover, was the Company’s OTCIQ Account on which the Company relies to file its financial reports and quarterly and annual reports to prevent the Company from being suspended by the OTC and possibly de-listed by the SEC was being held hostage by the Plaintiff.
7. Company Officers and Directors further discovered that Plaintiff not only had access to the Company’s OTCIQ account, but had named himself as the issuer, thereby conveying complete control of the Company to himself, something that the Officers and Directors never agreed to, or ever would agree to.
8. When confronted with these issues, Plaintiff became defensive, insulting and engaged in a series of lies and prevarications in an attempt to falsely justify his actions. It is for these reasons,
coupled with disturbing details regarding Plaintiffs private life, and other professional dealings that Company Officers and Directors elected to rescind and terminate its contract with Plaintiff on April 15, 2020.
9. Each of the actions taken by Plaintiff, as set forth above, were improper and went far beyond his authority under his contract as a “consultant”. The purpose of a consultant is to provide expert opinions, analysis, and recommendations to organizations such as CUBA Beverage Co., not to take complete control over a company thereby stripping its Officers and Directors of their rights under California Corporations Code § 300 et seq., and making public announcements which were
damaging to the Company and which did not align with Company intentions and objectives, but instead were designed to advance Plaintiffs private agenda.
10. I respectfully submit that these unilateral decisions were made by Plaintiff without the authority, knowledge or consent of the Officers and Directors of the Company and were unlawful, self serving, and oppressive.
11. Accordingly, the Officers and Directors of the Company had a lawful right and a duty to rescind and terminate its contract with Plaintiff to protect not only themselves and to preserve the integrity of the the Company, but most importantly, to protect its shareholders.
12. Upon termination, Plaintiff used his unauthorized access to the Companyaccounts to have the Company suspended from trading, an act which cost the Company tens of thousands of dollars to cure.
13. I respectfully submit that as a result of the triable issues raised above and the nature of the allegations raised against the Plaintiff, that this action should proceed to trial and should not be decided on a Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication.
14. As a further result of the triable issues raised above, coupled with the costs associated with undoing the damage Plaintiff imposed upon the Company during employ and post termination, Defendant CUBA Beverage Co., is preparing and will be filing a cross-complaint to Plaintiffs action.
I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: December 27, 2021
By: /s/ George W. Morgan
GEORGE W. MORGAN
President CUBA Beverage Co.
Declarant
Nate... GS was long gone by the end of April, 2020... see filing below.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE
GEORGE SHARP Case No. 37-2020-00019244-CL-BC-CTL
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT CUBA BEVERAGE CO.’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
vs. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY
CUBA BEVERAGE COMPANY ADJUDICATION
MARK HAGEN; MARGARET WILLETT AND DOES,
1-500 INCLUSIVE Date: January 21, 2022 Time: 09:00 a.m.
Defendant’s Dept. 75, Hon. James A Mangione
Trial Date: 03/18/2022
INTRODUCTION
This case arises from a purported “Breach of Contact”, between Plaintiff and Defendant CUBA Beverage Co. Plaintiff bases his reliance on the purported breach on Defendant’s alleged failure to remit payment, coupled with Plaintiffs right to terminate its contract for “unethical
behavior”. Plaintiff set the termination date as April 30, 2020.
In its complaint, Plaintiff alleges that under the terms of the Second Contract, (hereinafter “Contract”), he was to be paid $15,000 on February 20, 2020 and an additional $15,000 on May 20, 2020. On February 25, 2020, the Plaintiff received $7,500 from Margaret Willett
as first payment on the contract. (See Complaint, p.4, ¶¶ 10-12).
Further, Plaintiff alleges that “In spite of numerous promises by “Hagen” and “Willett” in their representation of CUBA, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff the contracted amount as set forth in the Contract.”
“As a result of the Defendants’ failure to abide by the terms of the Contract, including failure to pay the Plaintiff as set forth in the contract and the Defendants’ unethical conduct, the Plaintiff
terminated his service under the Contract on April 30, 2020 and demanded payment.” (See Complaint, p.4,5 ¶¶ 13,15). In its Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff again states the termination date of the Contract as April 30, 2020. (See Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, No. 10), which states, “Plaintiff terminated the Agreement on April 30, 2020).
Defendant asserts, for reasons more fully set forth below,that Plaintiffs contract was rescinded and terminated by Defendant on April 15, 2020, two weeks prior. Now, with full knowledge that his employ and contract thereunder were lawfully terminated by the Defendant due to Plaintiffs own unprofessional, unethical, unlawful conduct and business practices, Plaintiff comes before the Court seeking summary judgment/adjudication of its claim, with the hope of denying Defendant a
trial on the merits.
MEMORANDUM
A. Courts Must Look at the Evidence in a Light Most Favorable to the Opposing Party in Ruling on Summary Judgment/Adjudication “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850. “All doubts as to whether there are any triable issues of fact are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Ingham v. Luxor Cab Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1049. In ruling on the motion, a court must “consider all of the evidence” and “all” of the “inferences” reasonably drawn there from, and must view such evidence and such inferences, in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Code of Civil Procedure § 437(c)(c); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal. 4th at p. 843. (Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 ["Weiss").) Declarations and other evidence offered in support of a motion for
summary judgment are strictly construed, while declarations and evidence offered in opposition to the motion are liberally construed. (D’Amico v. Bd. of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 20; Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.(2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56,64 The Court cannot weigh the credibility of witnesses or weigh other evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, and where there is a conflict in declarations presented by the parties on material issues of fact or a conflict in the inferences to be drawn from that evidence, the Court must deny the motion. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840 ("Binder") ["The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a fact finder to determine whose version is more likely true."]; Weiss, supra, 9 Cal.5th at 864.) Further, "summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if
contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable
issue as to any material fact." (Id.; Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).)
The issues to be considered on a motion for summary judgment are defined by the pleadings. (Doe v. Good Samaritan Hospital (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 653, 661 [issues considered on summary judgment are "defined by the pleadings"]; Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 161 ("Teselle") A motion for summary adjudication under Code of Civil
Procedure § 437c(f)(1) can only be granted "if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty." (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1).) (See also Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 251.)
B. Summary Judgment or Adjudication As to Plaintiffs First and Only Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Should Be Denied Because Genuine Issues of Triable Fact Exist Regarding Rescission of the Contract By Defendant Prior To Plaintiffs Termination In the instant case, Defendant asserts that its Officers and Directors discovered that Plaintiff had set up a number of accounts in the name of CUBA Beverage without the authority, knowledge or consent of the Officers and Directors of the Company. Defendant further discovered that none of the Officers and/or directors had access to these accounts whereas Plaintiff held the
pass codes which he refused to share with Defendant. These accounts include, a Twitter account on which Plaintiff made public announcements regarding the Company’s objectives, again without the authority, knowledge or consent of the Officers and/or Directors of the Company.
Moreover was the Company’s OTCIQ account on which the Company relies to file its financial reports and quarterly and annual reports to prevent the Company from being suspended.
Defendant discovered that Plaintiff not only had access to the Company’s OTCIQ Account, but had named himself as the “Issuer”1 , thereby conveying complete control of the Company to himself. Defendant asserts that these unilateral decisions made by Plaintiff without the authority, knowledge or consent of the Officers and Directors of the Company were unlawful, and self serving. When confronted with these issues, Plaintiff became defensive, insulting, and engaged in a series of lies and prevarications in an attempt to falsely justify his actions. It is for
these reasons, coupled with disturbing and worrisome details discovered by Defendant regarding Plaintiffs private life, and other professional dealings, that Defendant elected to rescind and terminate its contract with Plaintiff on April 15, 2020. (See Declaration of George W. Morgan).
Defendant asserts that each of the actions taken by Plaintiff, as set forth above, went far beyond his authority under his contract as a “consultant”. Defendant submits that the purpose of a consultant is to provide expert opinions, analysis, and recommendations to organizations such as Defendant, not to take complete control over a company thereby stripping its Officers and Directors of their powers under California Corporations Code § 300 et seq. Accordingly, Defendant had a lawful right and a duty to rescind and terminate its contract with Plaintiff to
protect the Officers, Directors and moreover, the shareholders of the Company. Defendant respectfully submits that as a result of the triable issues raised above and the nature of the allegations raised against the Plaintiff, that this action should proceed to trial and should not be ruled on by a Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion of Summary Judgment or Adjudication.
Dated: December 27, 2021
By: /s/ Eliyahu Kaplunovsky
ELIYAHU KAPLUNOVSKY
Attorney for Defendant
CUBA Beverage Co., Inc.
Wow... someone crapped in the bed this afternoon! Had to be someone that bought long ago in the trips. I emailed Margaret this morning asking her to please provide shareholders an update and I imagine others have as well so hoping for something next week!
Blue Water... I am just as anxious to know what is going on as you but the board has been anxious to hear what was going on the last several months. I can only imagine that Margaret is doing a complete overview of the company's finances, records, etc given what she said about George Morgan in her satisfaction filing.
We are just going to have to wait until she updates us.
Margaret Willett was appointed Custodian in June 2019. If you look at this order, you will see the poor condition of the company at the time she came aboard and the company is in pretty good shape. If she won a judgment for $282,000 and was never paid, she is entitled to be paid, imo.
Is it going to impact the shareholders? Probably so in the short term.
We just need to wait and let her provide an update. Remember... George Morgan just resigned this Monday so it has only been 4 days since she took back control. She knows we are wanting/needing an update.
I am of the opinion the lithium merger talks were real and I am hoping that Margaret will provide us an update on the status of the company and the merger talks.
Haha... still hoping that is where we are all going to be eventually!
I do not believe for one second that what GS says has much validity as he has made it clear he wants to destroy CUBV and the h@ll with shareholders.
Mr. Morgan did a lot of good for the company based on what I observed. It looks like he was wrong in the way he handled Margaret's satisfaction document but I am not going to throw Mr. Morgan under the bus until more information is known from Margaret. We have audited financials and our reporting is up-to-date and I believe we were and possibly still are in merger negotiations with a Salton Sea lithium production company. I read a lot of the court filings dealing with the litigation against Sharp and a ton of effort was made by Mr. Morgan and our attorney to win this litigation.
Our stock price has been beat up but, hopefully, Margaret will be providing shareholders will a complete update soon. Realize Mr. Morgan's resignation was just posted on Monday of this week so no doubt Margaret has been busy stepping back in to oversee CUBV's affairs. Fingers are crossed we are still on the path of merging with lithium company.
There was and still may be a lithium production company merging into CUBV shell. Waiting for custodian to update shareholders.
Margaret Willett was appointed Custodian on June 12, 2019, The filing for this is at the end of the company Twitter website.
Shares trading hands was the reason for all the negative posts the last several days. It's not call manipulation for nothing!
I believe that is exactly what is going on and why it was recommended to file a SEC complaint. Manipulation is definitely ongoing, imo.
You have proof that PoP is Morgan's biological son? If so, show it...
What say you paid disrupter?
Keith... you are not a shareholder so why are you saying 'we'? It is obvious why you are here and, no doubt, taking pleasure in seeing the stock price drop.
I agree those accusations have no supporting basis and, imo, are his way of causing doubt about the whole Lithium company merger. He admits that he believes Sharp should come take over... even after all the bitter tweets that Sharp did about CUBV.
I await an update from Margaret Willet on the status of the merger and the direction of the company if the merger is not on the table anymore.
Margaret Willet is not new… she has been the custodian since 2019.
Keith is not a newbie... he is involved with Sharp and now a CUBV shareholder.