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: BlueFox who wrote (16280)	11/27/1998 7:42:00 AM
From: Brady B.	Respond to of 18444

Found this note that appears to be more explicit............ >>>SPECIAL NOTES: Reasons for above deletion for ESVS: Net tangible assets/mkt cap/net income below min; violation of shareholder approval & reverse merger requirements; & public interest concerns.<<< bb

To: BlueFox who wrote (16280)	11/27/1998 8:00:00 AM
From: Brady B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

From Nasdaq to OTC rule................ Question #37: Is there an expedited procedure for listing recently delisted Nasdaq securities on the OTC Bulletin Board? Answer: Yes. On February 28, 1992, the SEC granted an exemption from Rule 15c2-11 for securities that will be delisted from Nasdaq due to the revised listing and maintenance requirements for the Nasdaq Small-Cap Market. When these securities are delisted, they will automatically be eligible to quote on the OTC Bulletin Board or any other quotation medium the next business day without the filing of a Form 211, as long as the following requirements are met: (1) The security must have been traded on Nasdaq for the past 30 days; (2) The issuer must not be subject to bankruptcy proceedings; (3) The issuer must be current in its SEC reporting requirements; and (4) The broker/dealer relying on this exception must have been a market maker in the subject security during the 30 days prior to delisting. bb

To: BlueFox who wrote (16280)	11/27/1998 8:17:00 AM
From: bambaata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

BLUE FOX WHAT ARE U SMOKING??? If SIM lost $600,000 a WEEK?????,in 1997, dont YOU think it would be prudent to restructure and look at your business. ESVS is a roll up of 5 companies and technolgies in less than a year,people seem to forget these things in light of the warp speed that net co's are at. 1999 will be the year to judge if that roll up and the diverse strategy works. Give it time..

To: BlueFox who wrote (16280)	11/27/1998 2:41:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

My two Canadian roommates say "hi" to ya, BlueFox. Once again, where in Canada are you? Deborah's from Montreal and Marcia's from New Brunswick. Now, back to Zulu: >>>PartyTime: Besides, anyone investing in this company would do so precisely because it is a growing company and not one which has already achieved pubity. >>>BlueFox: Growing? 38MM 1997 to what in 1998? Far less. We can be pretty sure that measuring this quarter, in which there was no service for a while, against the previous quarter will show a continued shrinking of sales and customer base. That is not growing. In a sector where investors expect to see 30-50% growth per quarter, they'll be real shy of a company that is shrinking. Well, remember BlueFox. When Zulu bought SIM it immediately claimed its revenues for '97. In the audit analysis of those revenues, it turned out SIM gave away the store for some valued clients. Sure the '98 reorg shows cost-cutting, slashing, reduced revenue and all kinds of things. But if and when a new entity comes on board, those revenues will be added into the pie. So it's still a stay-tuned scene, in my view. >>>PartyTime: So if the ESVS/ZULU consortium continues to grow in OTC Land, the ex-SIMer piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller in terms of its force of representation in the larger picture. Doesn't it?<<< >>>BlueFox: Huh? Basic math PT: if they own 5% or 50% of the company, it doesn't matter what size it is, they still have the same representation. The only way for the "ex-SIMer" to be screwed is to screw all ZULU shareholders.<<< The exSIMers owned 20% of ZuluMedia which becomes a smaller percentage in the overall Zulu-tek pie. If Zulu-tek, with the addition of ESVS and others becomes bigger, the share of the pie owned by the exSIMers becomes a smaller percentage. Isn't that the way it works? >>>PartyTime: Remember, the ex-SIMers could only protest what involved ZuluMedia, not what involved Zulu-tek.<<< >>>BlueFox: Why? They hold ZULU preferred shares.<<< I was quoting from comments of Bob Smith saying he didn't think the ex-SIMMers could block the merger with ESVS, since it was all of Zulu-tek that was merging, and not simply the ZuluMedia component. But who knows what happened, at this stage? So I guess, presently, we're all still left scratching our heads. Let's hope we don't all go bald before this saga finishes. Hope you had fun this week!