For the record, I never suggested PTSC was involved in any wrong doing.  On the contrary, my assumption all aong has been that PTSC would be fully compliant, otherwise, trying to interpret what the details of the filing rules might reveal would be fruitless, as if PTSC wasn't complying with them....etc. etc.

As for my search, FutTheWuk made a post that summed up pretty much what I had concluded after reading many different regulations today.  It seems Reg FD is the operative regulation and what it says about materiality seems to govern.  I've posted what IMO is the pertinent blurb after this post below.

It seems almost certain that there is nothing in the regulations or the way the filings were done that would rule out a significant dollar figure to the settlements, and actually, it seems clear from the way things were done that in fact there is a significant dollar figures involved.

From: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm

2. Disclosures of Material Nonpublic Information

The final regulation, like the proposal, applies to disclosures of "material nonpublic" information about the issuer or its securities. The regulation does not define the terms "material" and "nonpublic," but relies on existing definitions of these terms established in the case law. Information is material if "there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in making an investment decision.38 To fulfill the materiality requirement, there must be a substantial likelihood that a fact "would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available."39 Information is nonpublic if it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to investors generally.40

The use of the materiality standard in Regulation FD was the subject of many comments. Some commenters supported the use of the existing definition of materiality, noting that attempts to define materiality for purposes of Regulation FD could have implications beyond this regulation.41 Other commenters, however, including securities industry representatives, securities lawyers, and some issuers or issuer groups, stated that using a general materiality standard in the regulation would cause difficulties for issuer compliance.42 These commenters claimed that materiality was too unclear and complex a standard for issuer personnel to use in making "real time" judgments about disclosures,43 and that this vagueness would lead to litigation and a chilling effect on corporate disclosure practices.44 These commenters offered a variety of recommendations to address this issue.

Some commenters suggested that the regulation include a bright-line standard or other limitation on what was material for purposes of Regulation FD, or identify in the regulation an exclusive list of types of information covered.45 While we acknowledged in the Proposing Release that materiality judgments can be difficult, we do not believe an appropriate answer to this difficulty is to set forth a bright-line test, or an exclusive list of "material" items for purposes of Regulation FD. The problem addressed by this regulation is the selective disclosure of corporate information of various types; the general materiality standard has always been understood to encompass the necessary flexibility to fit the circumstances of each case. As the Supreme Court stated in responding to a very similar argument: "A bright-line rule indeed is easier to follow than a standard that requires the exercise of judgment in the light of all the circumstances. But ease of application alone is not an excuse for ignoring the purposes of the securities acts and Congress' policy decisions. Any approach that designates a single fact or occurrence as always determinative of an inherently fact-specific finding such as materiality, must necessarily be over- or underinclusive."46

Other suggestions from commenters included providing more interpretive guidance about types of information or events that are more likely to be considered material. While it is not possible to create an exhaustive list, the following items are some types of information or events that should be reviewed carefully to determine whether they are material: (1) earnings information; (2) mergers, acquisitions, tender offers, joint ventures, or changes in assets; (3) new products or discoveries, or developments regarding customers or suppliers (e.g., the acquisition or loss of a contract); (4) changes in control or in management; (5) change in auditors or auditor notification that the issuer may no longer rely on an auditor's audit report; (6) events regarding the issuer's securities -- e.g., defaults on senior securities, calls of securities for redemption, repurchase plans, stock splits or changes in dividends, changes to the rights of security holders, public or private sales of additional securities; and (7) bankruptcies or receiverships.47

By including this list, we do not mean to imply that each of these items is per se material. The information and events on this list still require determinations as to their materiality (although some determinations will be reached more easily than others). For example, some new products or contracts may clearly be material to an issuer; yet that does not mean that all product developments or contracts will be material. This demonstrates, in our view, why no "bright-line" standard or list of items can adequately address the range of situations that may arise. Furthermore, we do not and cannot create an exclusive list of events and information that have a higher probability of being considered material.