My husband and I would contribute to the "war chest" to hire an SEC attorney, based upon a fair and equitable system determined by numbers of shares held by each of us. I think it is totally unreasonable to expect that just because someone may own 8 million shares that they alone should foot the bill for all of us

I can't help but smile at the perceived inequity of someone who may own 8 million shares paying for an initial opinion from an SEC lawyer with their money.

What seems to have been forgotten is the cost for such an exercise, given the allegations made about the BoD, could so easily been met from the tax free $640,000 in payments from PTSC in 2006/2007 on those shares.

It makes no sense to me that absolutely nothing was done, on a personal level, to even see if grounds existed to remove the BoD based on the allegations, if one were so concerned about the depreciation in price, more so when that falling price has resulted in a $15,000,000 difference in value.

An opinion, based on the allegations, would probably have cost in the region of $30,000. Furthermore, one isn't talking about a "lay person", rather a "savvy businessman" in possession of a Juris Doctor.

Why was nothing done to obtain an opinion when over 40,000,000 shares were pledged for the "letter"? ($1 per 1,000 shares held would have met the costs of an opinion).

What if an opinion was received and it was determined that no grounds, based on the allegations, existed?

There is so much that just doesn't add up.

.

.

.

Be well