As you put it, I'd question RG's willingness to go along with "shady" business. More appropriately, I'd classify this issue as "less than professional" though. Interesting that RG, the CEO of the company, was glaringly absent from the PR, and perhaps, (though perhaps not), that is indicative of his statement of not willing to be unprofessional.

When you put it into the context that I, a regular Joe, was able to research and find out this information within minutes, don't you think others who would be tasked with vetting relationships with PTSC would find this out just as easily? Don't you think they'd have the same questions? When they do, don't you think the company should be better prepared to respond with an INFORMATIVE response that is something other than we're not in a position to aswer your questions?

Why not issue a PR that says PTSC has "agreed to retain" or "has retained Greg Baroni" rather than say "Baroni Management Company LLC has been retained", which clearly means that they are intending to convey that have engaged an actual company, rather than an individual, to peform this assessment.

This is a PUBLIC company, that we are talkiing about, owned by shareholders, not a mom & pop private company that can do essentially as it wishes. This is a PUBLIC company, issuing the most PUBLIC of PR's, more publicly disemminated than others it has issued over the last a few months, and clearly looking to present an image and "buzz" about its activities.

If there actually IS NO Baroni Management Company LLC yet OFFICIALLY in existence, the claim of the PR may actually be actionable, legally, even if only on a technicality basis. Who is vetting this stuff for us? Is it the same reviewers and negotiators that got us into the agreement with TPL which admittedly by most includes less than favorable to PTSC, and possibly legally questionable terms? Have they not learned from that, or from the "technicalities" they are getting hit with at the USPTO, or from the other missteps they have had?

Certainly Greg Baroni brings some definite credentials to the table. Is that not enough that they couldn't tout a relationship with him directly, or somehow phrase it so they weren't claiming ties to a yet non-existent company, or if it is an actual comapny, be able to answer shareholders inquiries to simply prove it?

Is there any question as to why there are questoins about this company? These are such easy pitfalls to avoid, and yet the company continues to step into them. Why?