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 (16653)	12/5/1998 12:06:00 AM
From: Brady B.	Respond to of 18444

I only hope, regardless of any losses I may take, that if wrongs have been committed during any part of this deal, those committing the wrongs pay dearly. Maybe the 3rd strike law will come into play. bb

To: BlueFox who wrote (16653)	12/5/1998 12:09:00 AM
From: Brady B.	Respond to of 18444

Posted earlier on Yoohoo..................... It was not a technicality. 1) the Registrant had not complied with NASDAQ's shareholder approval rule 2) they did not meet the requirements for initial inclusion 3) violated NASDAQ's policies on voting rights 4) failed to fully disclose the details of transaction and other matters 5) did not currently meet the net tangible assets requirement for either initial or continued inclusion 1 def) non-compliance 2 def) do not meet requirements 3 def) policy violation 4 def) failure to disclose 5 def) do not meet requirements No technicallity problems IMO. bb

To: BlueFox who wrote (16653)	12/5/1998 12:14:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

>>>You should lose comfort in the fact that the guys running these operations apparently aren't aware of the rules by which they play. This is not a technicality, it is failure to observe the rules. It would appear that the ESVS shareholders may have been screwed over as well. The trail these guys are leaving is not a pretty one.<<< As always, BlueFox, you place wisdom to interpretation. Thanks very much for your clarification. However, even in pro sports where rules sometimes change, umpires don't always get it right, nor do managers or players. And, of course, to fans, it's always: "Foul! Get the bum outta there!" Given Nasdaq's reverse merger rules are about half as young as is Zulu, rather than automatically assume the worst, as many do, I'm gonna to take the view a new rule lesson startled the ESVS legal staff. Also worth a consideration is the possibility the participating attorneys had been involved in a similar deal that had gone through before, and genuinely thought it could happen again the same way. I consider this possibility because I recall directly asking Pat Hayton, during our coffee in Boston, (herein paraphrased) what would the procedure be like getting on the board. He assured me so long as there was shareholder approval there'd be no problem. And I remember responding, "you mean it's like a rubberstamping type action," to which he nodded yes. So I know he thought this aspect of the deal would be easy. Still further, we can't discount there MAY have been Nasdaq opposition from the ex-SIMer camp who, owning a sizeable minority block of ZuluMedia shares, can be a pesky bunch so as to have caused an unwelcome stirring of the pot, causing Nasdaq to closely examine the stew to assure was up to taste. Now, regarding your comments on Netvest. Were you a member of Netvest, would you too wish to maximize profits? In my world, I most sincerely do not appreciate greed. But I know the world well enough to know it exists, and particularly so within the stock market. And, yes, this is the stock market, isn't it? Do you think oil companies, for instance, ever attempted similar deals, or even slicker ones, so to speak? Or what of tobacco companies? BlueFox, we're talking Barbarians at the Gate are we not? Clearly, when it comes to moving money around, don't most of 'em seek an advantage of some kind? What about billing and fee methadology of lawyers and doctors or insurance comanies? Perhaps what the negative camp is really telling us is that investing in stocks is not a game for the timid and innocent folks. Instead of suggestions like, "go to your room," we hear "go to your mutual fund!" (LOL) Well, this is PennyLand still and I stand behind my risk.