SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (16691)12/5/1998 9:26:00 PM
From: Terry T.  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 18444
 
If a shareholder is a de facto director and officer (like I suspect Pat Hayton may be) in my opinion he should bear the same fiduciary responsiblity of an officer and director and related liability. A controlling shareholder should , in my opinion, bear some responsiblity as well for potential screw ups by a management he controls and may actively and regularly dominate.

Further, Zulu and ESVS may have had the same legal counsel to put together this sorry pseudo-closing for the business combination, which in my opinion has left Zulu's stock high and dry pending the conversion of the convertible preferred (up to 5-6 months down the road), and its assets transferred with (in my opinion) an unclear and potentially impossible ability to "unwind the transfer" and return those assets if the ESVS deal fell apart.Query whether the same legal counsel for ZULU and ESVS rendered advice on the potential "technical" problems we are discussing with the reverser merger, and what action was taken to overcome any "technical" problems identified? If warnings were provided and (hypothetically) recklessly disregarded by ESVS or ZULU management, query what added liability exists in the circumstances, and whether the failure timely and fully to disclose potentially known problems with the reverse merger to shareholders creates a basis for shareholder litigation as well.