Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slipnsip who wrote (2266)	2/28/1998 4:36:00 AM
From: tahoeman	Respond to of 18444

David, The transfer agent stated yesterday that Zulu was authorized up to 50 Million Shares. That's not to say that the plans aren't to file for additional shares, when they submit financials. Good work on the deciphering of the conversion! I think we will all understand more once the financials are released.

To: slipnsip who wrote (2266)	2/28/1998 6:11:00 AM
From: TokyoMex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Reverse coming ... Good luck .. Joe

To: slipnsip who wrote (2266)	2/28/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: Joe Copia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

To: Netmaster Shareholder From: Jason Bogustski re: outstanding shares Netmaster Group, Inc. CUSIP# 64114N 10 8 Total shares outstanding 42,262,263* -Total shares free trading 20,182,353 as of today 2-26-98 - Total shares restricted 22,079,910 as of today 2-26-98 Total shares autorized 50,000,000 Joe PTG&LI !!!

To: slipnsip who wrote (2266)	3/1/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: Ray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Hi all. I am a new SI Member, long NETZ, and this is my first post. In response to David Hurbanis' earlier analysis, I want to discuss the Class A & B pfd shares mentioned in the S&P Report on NETZ. I have copied the pertinent definitions of these classes below. The tortuous legal wording can easily be misinterpreted. "@Closely held. Ser. A Pfd. shs. are not entitled to dividends. Ser. A Pfd.shs. are entitled to $1 per sh. in liquidation. Convertible into Com. into the number of Com. shs. obtained by dividing $1 by the then lowest bid price per sh.(but not less than $0.05 per sh.) for the Com. stock during the 90 day period immediately preceding the date of conversion, which will be after the first quarter in which the company's gross revenues on an annualized basis exceed $20 million ; an underwritten public offering of not less than $10 million; registration of Com. stock into which the Ser. A Pfd. shs. are convertible; August 1, 1998 (with respect to one-half of the shs.); August 1, 1999 (with respect to the one-half of the shs.); and August 31, 1998, if on that date there is not an effective registration statement covering all the shs. of Ser. A Pfd.stock; and upon occurrence of certain specific events. "a Closely held. Ser. B Pfd. shs. are not entitled to dividends. Convertible to Com. shs. on the basis of $1 million Ser. B Pfd. shs. are convertible into Com. at $0.25 per sh.; $1 million at $0.50 per sh.; and $1 million at $0.75 per sh." First, Series B: A simple point. The wording of description "a", if it is correct, says that $3 million is the purchase price of the 3 million Series B pfd shares., or a dollar a share. Now, Series A: The wording of description "@" is a disgrace. The worst aspect of the description is that it does not make clear if the conversion conditions are exclusive ("or"), inclusive ("and"), or a mixture of both. I take the word "and" (used just before "August 31, 1998" and also just before "upon occurrence of certain") to mean that ALL the conditions are inclusive - that is, they must all be satisfied. If I am right, then I believe the earliest conversion date for the Series A shares is August 1, 1998 (and then only one-half of them). Who knows what the lowest bid price will be in the 90 day period prior to the first of August? Probably far above the $0.15 David assumed. I surely hope so, at least. So, I think the additional number of common shares after conversion will be much less than David estimated. Any other interpretations of "@"? Ray Bowman