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: PartyTime who wrote (13335)	9/3/1998 12:03:00 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

PartyTime, what you do with your shares, what Aleta does with hers, or what Pat Hayton does with his, has absolutely NO bearing on the accessibility of Zulu-Tek's assets to a debtor or somebody who wins a judgement against them. They can't come after the owner of the shares. How would you like it if you owned MSFT, and SUNW won a big judgement against them, and it meant that YOU had to shell-out money from your own pocket. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! The liability of shareholders is strictly limited to their original investment. Thus, there is no possible "hide the ball" play that could be done with shares controlled by Pat Hayton (or anybody else, for that matter) that would protect (or not protect) Zulu-Tek. The only possible manuver with such shares would be for the purpose of protecting the owner of the shares. (e.g. Aleta gets a divorce, and transfers her valuable Zulu-Tek shares to PartyTime, to keep her husband from getting them.) AJammer quite clearly stated that CIE was being used to hide assets from SIMmers. I was simply pointing out that this is impossible - the only assets that might be hidden that way are the personal assets of whomever the shareholder happens to be. Several people here have expressed similar confusion over recent 144 filings, claiming that they have something to do with the purchase of ZULU by ESVS. They do not, because they aren't treasury shares, but shares owned by individuals. It SHOULD be clear to people, yet it is not. Your shares are your shares - THAT should be clear. PT's shares are PT's shares, and Aleta's shares are Aleta's shares. But, suddenly an insider sells some shares, and people want to intimate that they aren't really their shares, and they aren't really divesting themselves of a significant chunk of their ownership in the company.