Assurances came not only from those on the board here, but also the company itself. They assured that no such conflicts existed. I have e-mails from the company to that effect dating back a couple of years.

Additionally, these moves we see from PTSC of late are all reactive, instead of proactive, unfortunately. What the cost to PTSC and us as shareholders can never be known in reality. Had PTSC only acted proactively to address these issues years ago when they were repeatedly raised, I'd venture to guess that we'd be well north of the 10 cents at this stage.

Again, better late than never, but hardly conforting to know that the concerns many of us voiced and begged the company to address, were likely on target.

Even in this filing, the requirement for a "majority" of PDS' management committee is concerning. Considering that committee is made up of Leckrone, Johnson, and a TPL employee who's name I forget. While a unanimous vote requirement might create the possibility of obstruction by either TPL or PTSC, the majority rule still leaves PTSC at a disadvantage since they are outnumbered with the "independent" representative actually being a TPL person as well.

I applaud the BOD for taking some decisive measures, however, considering their record to date, it's hard not to suspect these are more CYA moves than proactive, fiduciarily responsive and done with shareholders interests in mind.

I guess we'll find out in time.