"As unlikely as it may seem, isn't it possible that, after having the long-term strategy explained by Leckrone, the BoD agreed to be kept in the dark?"

If you believe that is possible, or that it happened, then you truly should be calling for their ouster, the WHOLE lot of them. How can you expect that OUR CEO and OUR BOD, signed OUR company, and by doing so, THEIR name(s) (at least one of them had to be able to bind the company to the settlement agreements) to a legal agreement of which they had no knowledge of the terms. How can you reconcile that with their fiduciary responsibility. In accepting that as a possibility, you accept that ANY terms could have been included in settlement.

Now if the position you take is that there are certain parameters to which PTSC agreed to settle, and to which of those specific parameters were agreed to, PTSC may not have known at the time the settlements were made, even that in my opinion is suspect at best. For them to continue to be in the dark to agreements they've bound OUR public company to is grounds for their immediate removal, IMO. How could they plan any future activity of the company without knowing the parameters of the agreements. How could RG take a job, that by this theory, could have PTSC or the MMP being sold to Toshiba as part of this settlement, without knowing this. It's preposterous IMO.

BTW:

"Crap, I think I just convinced myself that PTSC does NOT know the terms of the settlement with the Js (the content of the MOU). It's the only logical thing, IMO, that explains the imposition of trading restrictions."

That's as much an accusation as saying, "Hmm...I've convinced myself that RG is taking money under the table from TPL to keep quiet and make these statements in these letters he issues that suggest that there will be no more money coming from the J's."