This stock has been on a steady decline since March 2006.  The dividend policy lent only short term support, nothing more.  I believe many investors, like myself, may not have fully appreciated what was going on behind the scenes ie. S&L.  Most hear will say they understood completely but, I find that to be disingenuous  The truth has lead the price down nothing more.   I don't take sharing my stories lightly.  It is an illustration of what can and does occur everyday.  My relative and I have discussed the issue of "public companies" many times.  He often talks about how successful and flawed the system can be for both companies and investors.  In both instances the board and CEO's stood firm in protecting the company and in turn the shareholders.  You bring up the issue of accumulation.  I would say based upon todays price an accumulator can have a field day.  I believe 100% we would be at these price levels with or without the dividend.  So retiring the warrants would have been a non-issue in terms of cost.

The primary point of my post was to share some of my own ongoing concerns and let Wolf know that his concerns are valid.  It doesn't mean I believe Mr. Turley is on the take.  People like to tell others to let the past go, when reality is the past is part of the present and always in the future.  No one really cares about the past until it comes up and bits you in the ass.  An extra $30/million dollars in the bank could come in handy should things not pan out.  When the dividends were announced, it didn't seem odd to you that it also included any warrant holders?  I didn't always agree with TCR but he was correct on one issue, S&L bled the company to death and mgmt stood by while it happened.  In both examples I shared, neither action put the company or it's shareholders at extreme risk.  Both were financially sound companies with strong reoccuring revenues.  They did what was necessary to protect the long term future of the company and it's investors.  I know you will say, well didn't PTSC mgmt do the same?  My answer would be no.  I'll give them an "A" for cleaning up the books but a C- for effort.    

If we win in court or see a settlement no one will care about these issues.  If we lose everyone will be looking to the past wondering what should have been done differently.  We have shareholders who attended the meeting telling us that Mr. Swartz himself gave everyone an open and honest answer.  We win, here comes a dollar if we lose, see ya in the teens.  What is most disturbing about that statement is the fact that Mr. Swartz wins regardless of the outcome.  If I ran a company it would be much more comforting to know I had $50/million in liquidity versus $20/million.  It's such a corny analogy but still so true, " A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".  As far as your apples for apples statement, it will be exactly that if we lose and Swartz walks away with tens of millions from selling and several extra million in divys.  Had my relative caved to the fund manager, it would have appeared to be great for all shareholders until the truth revealed itself down the road.  As usual the retail holders would have been the last to know. 

I understand Wolf's point completely.  Everyone talks about the need to be patient yet the need to distribute the money seemed quick and easy for management.  Mr. Turley says we need to take our time and choose carefully, however, he was part of a BOD that didn't need nearly that much time to make not one, not two but THREE dividend distributions.  I'm on board for only one reason, TPL.  If I'm presented with an opportunity to be rewarded I will gladly take it and always remember surviving this nasty lesson.  All IMO...