Well, I guess you guys have just gotten your definition of a business combination. Isn't it true that once they did a stock swap it became easier for them to integrate their activities within a business combination.
It seems quite logical to me that the business combination will be used until a formal merger is in effect. Had the company not previously indicated "planned merger" there might be some validity to your concerns. But even so, given what we know, it would still be a reach.
Jeffrey is correct. The company, today, is acting as one.
Indeed, it was a stroke of genius to buy the technology of EchoMedia and the bluechip clientele of Softbank Interctive Marketing in order to supplant a completely new and visionary executive leadership team at the top.
And here's another feather for the merger concept: James Green, formerly of Disney and formerly of Pixar, is brought in as chief operating officer in order to specifically oversee the details of the ESVS-Zulu merger.
Come on guys, isn't tomorrow going to be called another day? Or is tomorrow, according to the doubts I see being supplanted here, going to be called something else?
Here's one for yers [it's from humor I'm lifting from an old NCTI thread]:
Jon your points of contention are beginning to remind me of the sign I saw in a bar that said "Free Beer Tomorrow." You see, the thing is they never took the sign down. Of course, everyone still wanted the free beer. And such has been the run of your complaints that folks have started a new thread. They even put a sign out front saying you're not welcome.
Why not try staking out a middle position instead of always a contrary one? Are you writing a paper entitled "How Long Can I Delay the Obvious?" What exactly are you doing that you've become compelled to alienate so many people? |
