Would it not be a violation of the terms if it were determined (by the court) that a party (PTSC) acted so oddly as to cause suspicions by shareholders - leading to a conclusion that was right on the money? It's not like I/we just dreamed up the delusions without a whole bunch of prompts. Arguably, some of those (juiciest) prompts were provided by the court itself. But still.... I hedge to the side of caution.

BTW (humor intended), you say "Grant never means purchase". Check your history books. In the 1870's "Grant" meant "purchase". US Grant, one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. Though some argue that Grant himself was oblivious to much of the shadey deal-making. Let's build a railroad! LOL

SGE