Could the Zulu cure the problem by issuing a 10 for one forward split to all holders of record on the date when it performed its one for 10 reverse split?
In my view, even a press release which would clarify what happened (what Zulu was, is or is not) would be insufficient, given that the post-reverse split downward selling pressure, coupled with no information from the company, inherently forced many investors to sell--myself included. Such a press release would be most untimely and certainly could in no way repair the harm which was wrought on Zulu's investors.
There's no doubt about it. Something very, very unfair happened to Zulu's investors.
For example, how could Zulu investors fairly consider, or even communicate amongst themselves, their investment if no reliable information existed to describe it? Even the thread header, which I wrote, is full of holes and inaccuracies! But it was written--in consultation with others--based on the information available at the time. It defies the imagination how all that has changed.
I earnestly did not want to sell my shares and I certainly wanted the company to be successful. But how could I hold my shares and wish for the company's success when I didn't even know what the company was or could become? Indeed, everything I thought I knew, or was led to believe, either was changed or never came into existence.
What Zulu did gives blindsiding a new meaning.
If a lawsuit is to exist then it should be aimed at four prongs: Zulu-tek, ESVS, BFL and Phase2Media entities, plus individuals. Perhaps somewhere in the mix there may be assets, or if successful our losses could be restored with shares. To avoid a weighty legal proceeding, I thus propose Zulu reverse the one for 10 split to shareholders of record at that time. |
