Terry's stirring a hornets nest, but his is the mind of a legal beagle who has legitimate shareholder concerns.
On the other hand, Jon Tara is pleased to stir a hornets nest, but he has no legitimate shareholder concerns. He owns no Zulu stock.
In one instance Tara says he'll never buy or own Zulu; but yet in another moment he says he will only buy it if its share price is a penny. It's clear that he wishes to drive the stock price down to a penny. I believe that was the distinction FlatTaxMan was making when he said JT had lied.
In fact, Jon Tara has accepted nothing that's been positive about Zulu, but rather has only accentuated the negative. So it's important for SI readers to distinguish this difference.
That said, here are my Labor Day weekend thoughts relative to where we're heading into next week and beyond. These thoughts come from a posting I just made on Yahoo in response to Terry T's concerns.
To Terry:
I would wait at least a week before I'd do anything. The
company gave indications week before last more follow up
information would come relative to the acquisition. From a
common sense perspective, I don't think any company would
have wanted its news delivered in the general market atmosphere
we've encountered this past week.
Bringing in non-voluntary counsel at this point not only would be
premature, but it would also be inappropriate given we're near
the top of the hill and will soon see a view of what the other side
looks like. Again, no one can fault the company for not releasing
information this past week.
It's therefore my recommendation we wait and see what happens
at the conclusion of the upcoming week. If waters still appear
muddy, then--and only then--do I think it's appropriate to seek
remedies. Right now there is only the appearance something is
wrong and no proof such is the case. It's important to consider
that this viewpoint also has been clouded by much of the
negativity that has surrounded Zulu since day one.
I wonder what we would have seen if we took apart Doubleclick
before it IPO'd via the backing of Goldman and Sachs. I wonder
what a lot of companies looked like before they got their prized
Nasdaq listings.
If any legal action of any kind is undertaken it should not be so
severe as slapping a lawsuit on a company that is just learning to
walk. Perhaps, if anything, the appropriate action would be to
submit a legal advisory to take action if certain minority
shareholder conditions and criteria are not met.
Sam Matz on SI, a long time ago, said (and I paraphrase): Let
the deal be done, let's take the Nasdaq listing and be on our
way. It's taken me a long time to agree with him, becuase I, too,
wanted a better deal and one that would make me a lot of
money on the quick. It's just not going to be that way.
As much as I personally have been frustrated by Zulu's share
price, I've come to understand the two companies have been
functioning as one company in the knowledge they ultimately will
be one company, and that this one company has a longer game
plan other than just Zulu doing well in OTC:BB-Land.
So, sure, gather information. As minority shareholders indeed we
do want a just and considered position at the table. But let's not,
because of a strong naysayer element, begin banging our knives
and our forks on the table, yapping, "We want to eat! We want
to eat! We want to eat!" in fear that we'll never be served.
Let's see what their serving for dinner at the Nasdaq table and
note that just 'cause we got a lousy meal at the OTC:BB
restaurant, this shouldn't prevent us from dining again.
|
