Make no mistake, my comment in jest was about your championing the board and ceo's removal. What was not in jest was your implication that the board and ceo would have completely abdicated their fiduciary resposiblities as officers of a public company, and signed a settlement agreement binding the company, without knowledge of its terms.

This is NOT an issue of "NEED TO KNOW" or "COMPARMENTALIZING INFORMATION" and classified clearances within organizations. This is the governance committee and officers of a sole and separate public company, and your seriously flawed assertion that they would have signed a contract to which they didn't know the terms. You want to play Robert Ludlum novel plots, but I'm calling you on the idea that our BOD and CEO would have subjugated their duty to us and the company to ANYBODY as a severe breach of their responsibility and your implication of such is a serious accusation. TPL is NOT a part of PTSC. So regardless of how you want to play your "world of secrecy" ideas, they have NO authority to blindly bind PTSC, nor should they, to an agreement that settles a lawsuit, much less THIS lawsuit.

You should know better, and you should also understand the implications of what you were saying. I think you are intelligent enough to know that, and your dancing around the issue using "classified" and "world of secrecy" references instead, seriously causes me pause as to your motivation in proposing your many theories, as the extension of those theories, if true, speak very negatively of PTSC, and its management. If you don't see that, than either I've overestimated your intellect, or you are blinded by a desire to defend yourself.