2) Is it bad business to eliminate or postpone projects that can't now or won't be productive until down the road?
Yes, if you've announced them, but don't announce the change in plans.
3) Is it bad business to take the one component that was unlike all of the rest, Laptop Solutions, and secure its future with a deal such as the one made with Panasonic?
This is ESVS, not ZULU.
4) Is it bad business to nail down top-notch executives who can lead the company into the future? And to continue seeking qualified individuals as the job ads so indicate?
ZULU can't been seeking top-notch executives, ESVS seems to have cornered the market!
5) Is it bad business to concentrate on the specifics of a 50 million dollar private placement and a major merger deal that will lead a futuristic company onto Nasdaq in a sector where virtually all internet-related stocks boom the moment they're discovered?
Again, ESVS is doing the private placement.
6) Is it bad business to assure that Zulu members take control of the business combination by assuming control over both boards of directors prior to the merger?
How so? CIE has voting control of ESVS through the 220,000 shares and 1,000,000 preferred shares, and ESVS has voting control over ZULU (12,000,000 common shares and 1 million preferred shares that get 50 votes/share for corporate restructuring decisions). ZULU itself has control over nothing.
I'm still hunting for an answer to the age old question: if ZULU stands to gain the most, and ESVS is merely a shell through which ZULU is gaining a NASDAQ listing, why is ESVS doing everything, and ZULU sitting quietly?
BF |
