Just to be clear, it's not the ARS investment that I take issue with, it's the percentage of their funds that they put into that vehicle. In August of '07, the company reported having approx $22.3M in assets, $15.6M of it in cash & equivalents. They literally allowed the tie up of all of that cash in to the ARS vehicles in November. Feel free to list these other "bigger comapanies" with "experienced directors" that acted similarly.

As for S&L, there are plenty of strategies they could have used to buy out S&L. One could have been to offer a percentage of the first "X" amount of licensing revenue in exchange for all the shares and warrants, and could have been done after the closing of the Master Agreement. Sure money for S&L, no cash out of pocket for PTSC, and would have saved over 100M in share dilution. They've utilized similar agreements with others.

Even hindsight in the environment of minimal disclosure isn't 20/20, but that is what we have to judge from, and the view does not provide the revelation of a pattern of success. While proposing plans to solve foreseeable problems that they've created may work for politicians, it shouldn't be a business paradigm that is held up as a model to emulate, in my opinion.