While I agree with much of what you say, perhaps it would be wise to consider why they may have responded in that fashion.

I agree that PTSC has been less than "transparent" - far less - and I agree that the tone of that response comes across very poorly (I would have been taken aback as well). But in thinking it through, there may have been two or three good reasons for that (boilerplate, I suspect) response.

PTSC is engaged in some form of litigation on virtually every front (except with Holocom, I believe). Hence they aren't going to say anything that might harm their chances in such litigation.

In your original email, you suggested that they might have some good news to share regarding CrossFlow falling out of that conference. If they announced things went really well and that there are prospective clients based on communications/contacts at that conference (with nothing firm in hand), what would that say about the possible value of CrossFlow products/IP assets? Meanwhile, we're in litigation with CrossFlow folks regarding that very value, and mis-representations of the value and the status of CrossFlow assets/IP at the time of purchase and likely too mis-representations of the value of those assets/IP once fully matured. IMO, it is wise to say nothing until CrossFlow/PDSG has a significant contract in hand (where the potential profit puts a big dent in the amount overpaid). The litigation arguments would probably be impacted if the company is saying in court that we were lied to re: value, while at the same time publically touting that same value (albeit with more mature products).

Is there anything they could announce without possible negative legal ramifications? IMO, unless something has already happened (PDSG, Lecky, TPL loans/resolutions, Licensing, PTO), about all they can say is that they are working the issues.

So why the "warning tone"? In my last "real job", significant effort was expended assuring that there wasn't even the possible perception of wrongdoing. Something bad might happen once - a fluke - but action could be initiated to assure (the oversight organizations, the employees, the customer) that there would be no recurrence, or that the "possibly perceiveable" thing could never happen in the first place. The response to a concern would be determined by the possible ramifications (risk).

I recall an instance where something went haywire ONCE, and it cost the company a few thousand bucks off the bottom line. That was the only ramification - a minor cost ONCE. A meeting was held with interested top management attending. Round and round went the discussion until my boss had the wisdom and guts to stick his neck out and say, "look around the room, think of the burdened pay rates and the money we're spending just talking about this; much more talk and we will have doubled the cost we're so worried about. This happened once - if it happens again it might be worthy of discussion." Meeting ended.

But I was also involved in resolving a perceived problem (by Gov't auditors) that was a phantom problem - there was no intentional wrongdoing and the ultimate cost to all concerned was zero even if the perceived wrongdoing actually occurred and was allowed to persist. We responded with immediate action to develop a revised process with a series of added checks and balances, and implemented the revised process via written direction and training sessions involving over a hundred people. Why? The risk of the perception (and the potential for negative action) was too great to ignore.

Why did I share the above? Because I suspect that there may be a concern (within PTSC) of the perception of wrongdoing - not actual, just a possible perception. The wrongdoing? Sharing proprietary info with individuals that should not be disclosed unless disclosed to all. Again, I'm not saying it happened, but I am saying that by including that "warning" language in that email response, which is probably a boilerplate response/language now used in all such replies, they nip the concern in the bud and have a leg to stand on if there are ever allegations of such wrongdoing. Thus, that language satisfies two objectives: it reinforces a company recogition of the need to withhold info from select individual shareholders while providing a viable "excuse" for not sharing without having to address all the litigation underway.

Now, is this in the best interest of the company and its shareholders? Assuming I'm correct, I would think so. Interestingly, the word in the title fits this post nicely.

Is it frustrating/annoying? Yes.

I should add that even an announcement that the company continues to work all the issues would be appreciated. More would be better, but if there ain't no more it might at least assure us that they are doing things. The down side would be listing all the issues the company is trying to address (perceptions?). But the up side is being candid with shareholders. Worth it IMO.

FWIW,

SGE