At one time, IMO there was no conflict regarding Johnson. His colleague, Swartz, had made a significant investment of capital in PTSC. Under such circumstances, it is entirely appropriate for the financier to demand and receive BoD representation. The problem at this point in time, for me at least, is that Johnson still retains his position on the BoD in spite of the fact that Swartz has been renumerated for his investment, and no longer has a significant (as significant) holding/interest in PTSC. Not necessarily a "conflict", it's just no longer necessarily "appropriate".

As for Mr. Mistry, as I believe I have posted, his appointment to the BoD may be a rather obvious signal of future intent. If Cognizant somehow becomes tied-in with PTSC, a representative of Cognizant on our BoD would be completely appropriate. IMO, the only way having Mistry on the BoD would represent a "conflict" would be if we were in direct competition with Cognizant. Your observation that "Cognizant is reviewing PTSC" just makes things that more obvious - though I understand why PTSC isn't going to formally announce anything till a deal is done, if it gets done. If a deal never gets done, it would be appropriate for Mistry to resign his BoD position to avoid the appearance of (potential future) conflict of interests, IMO.

JMHOs, FWIW, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE