[NOTE: Terry, these are relatively short responses to your post]
>>> PartyTime, you are egging me on. You won't like this, but the management of this company has not acted in the responsible way I have seen in other companies. A very tiny, tiny case in point is management's total failure to respond to my respectful requests for financial and shareholder information, which Utah law (where ZULU is incorporated) requires every company to produce.<<<
I suppose because Zulu, as we know it, will soon be extinct having merged fully into ESVS. A final report, I would surmise, will be filed with Utah most likely in a notification of the corporation ceasing to exist.
>>>While your ex-Simer conspiracy theory might explain a desire to be close to the vest, why then would not management or some representative make the most basic courtesy call to me to explain the need for secrecy, or to request patience for whatever cogent reason it could muster. Why has management (except for Bob Smith) refused to return my calls.<<<
Did you ask Bob Smith about secrecy? Or Justin Walker? Isn't a merger deal supposed to be kept quiet anyway, never mind the SIM lawsuit threats?
>>>Why has legal counsel, to which Justin Walker referred me, refused to follow up on my request for information.<<<
Terry, you know how lawyers work: Delay, delay, delay--continuance, continuance, continuance, etc. Maybe given the attorney's billing rates (something of which I noted from an earlier post is a measure of pride for you), and Zulu's financial constraints, meant too much time and cost was required to expeditiously fulfill your request.
>>>Why, after my repeated calls and urging, was an annual report filed with Secretary of Utah on about August 24, 1998, listing 3 alleged officers and directors of Zulu, but one of which disavowed the list as being completely accurate, and another alleged officer and director (listed as President, no less) is apparently unknown to Zulu's staff and remains (as far as I know) a mystery person and unaccounted for to this day? <<<
Because ESVS was taking over ZULU's operations and maybe there was time-consuming discussions as to which board was actually going to prevail in the merger. As I understand it, Zulu board members moved onto the ESVS board, thus making identities as to who was on what board confusing. Given that one board was soon to disappear, much of this was likely considered moot by the company.
Again, this is a problem easily solved when the company delivers its discontinuance notice of operations to the state of Utah. Don't you know? No transition team ever gets it perfect. Regarding Zulu staff in the dark: Are University receptionists fully aware of who sits as trustees? Do you belong to any organizations where you don't know the names of the trustees?
>>>And, why is it that we can't get a copy of the annual report filed with the recent ESVS filing, so I can see if that same apparently
inaccurate report was made a part of the SEC filing, and/or see (finally) who purports to act as an officer and director of ZULU, and represents our interests.<<<
This report, I am certain, will be fully available for the upcoming shareholders meeting--don't you agree?
>>>This is the tip of the iceberg, so don't give me the crap about ex-Simers and other people being to blame for the lack of crediblity that plagues this company and dampens the value of the ZULU stock.<<<
Are you forgetting about our dear friends, the market makers? You don't think they don't read the bad press? Heck, a market maker is hungry for any information he or she can get about the company they're making the market in. If you make money with the stock going up and down, why not bring it down again? This way, you make more going up again. Certainly with the kind of press Zulu got, they could justifying manipulating downward, couldn't they?
>>>I am pleading, I guess, with this post, for management of Zulu and ESVS to get its act together and show some credibility and reliability, including issuing a press release verifying the 10:1 deal, verifying no further dilution of the 10:1 ratio or ESVS stock by a stock split or dividend, and verifying that there are no company policies or plans to account for the strange, but consistent, trading of ZULU at a 20:1 ratio.<<<
Perhaps you've already noted my concern, posted earlier, about a dilution of the 10 to one. It takes the ESVS price from $3 to $1.50, if they do a split. But if ESVS quickly flies into double digits from $1.50, it won't matter much for Zulu holders, will it? Remember, the conversion, as per SEC filing, is clearly 10 to one.
>>>P.S. I made this post one paragraph, so that very few people will have the stamina to wade through it. It is unfortunately highly critical of the company, at a time when I would love to see the new COO and Mr. Mincheff get things rolling. I have spoken my mind. I
will let matters rest, and will not respond to your no doubt equally long rebuttal. (We both want the stock to succeed, but until certain behavioral patterns are corrected, my tolerance and patience are at -0-.).<<<
Terry, my first gut response was to copy this and put it in an envelope, accompanied by a short note from me, and send it to Pat Hayton. But then I realized your concerns are additive for Zulu, perhaps even frivolous from their viewpoint.
I suppose it's like Bernie Sanders of Vermont. One socialist congressman isn't going to affect the way Congress behaves a whole lot. One shareholder, who happens to be a lawyer, I guess, is not going to affect the way Zulu behaves a whole lot as well.
I still think, how the press, the ex-SIMers, and thread posters affect the morale of the company is a worthwhile issue to raise on this thread. Try reading what I wrote a second time. |
