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: Brady B. who wrote (16337)	11/29/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

>>> By filing the lawsuit they put zulu in a position that it could not be used to show assets.<<< As I requested of you on the ESVS/Yahoo thread, Brady, please cite the venue and court docket number for the case to which you are referring? I think if there's any "allegating" going on, it's coming from you!

To: Brady B. who wrote (16337)	11/29/1998 2:11:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Actually, Brady, if Netvest is heavily invested on both sides of the fence, I think you're going to see the acqusition continue to take place. I suspect given the value of a Nasdaq listing, the ratio will have to change. But I suspect the deal will still take place under the auspices of the OTC:BB, where perhaps the scrutiny of such a deal is less stringent. I asked this question on Yahoo, and it's a wild one: Is it possible that this deal was intended, by the principal parties, to actually take place off of Nasdaq? I doubt it. But it's at least worth a consideration. And what would be the effect were another entity also to come into the mix? This has been hinted rather strongly over the past couple of months. Which begs the question: Would three OTC:BB entities coming together provide enough whallop to gain a Nasdaq or AMEX listing, particularly if under seasoned but new executive leadership, with a whole new board of directors and an assets value easily in excess of what would be required? Perhaps this was the plan with the ESVS listing--why can it not happen without it?

To: Brady B. who wrote (16337)	11/29/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Brady B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Clarification of 16337 for the idiots amongst us................. I hope Hayton is vested so heavily in ESVS that he goes down with it. Without ZULU, ESVS isn't worth the pot my great grandfather pissed in. The ex-simmers are probably what got the stock kicked off nasdaq. By filing the lawsuit (against zulu) they put zulu in a position that it could not be used to show assets. A (allegated) fraud riddled company (zulu) has no place on a listed exchange. Until it is disproven they (zulu) should not be allowed to even touch the nasdaq board. kudo's to the ex-simmers. bb Yes I hold zulu stock. I also hold a lot of other things that make me want to wash my hands afterward. Guess. bb