FACT:

We are giving ourselves 120 days to try to find a partner who has the name recognition for this software that Patriot/PDSG lacks. Baron is providing his assistance to us and will be consulting and leading the way for partnering. If we see no progress or evidence of success at approaching 120 days, we will most likely sell PDSG

FICTION:

Perhaps you have a different private email in mind, because the one from Gloria to Deb made it extremely clear that we needed a "name recognition partner", even to the point of us being prepared to "most likely sell PDSG" if we didn't get one.

You also left out the part about her omitting any reference to going it alone, "Partner" or "most likely sell", were the only two options described in her obviously thought out scenario

As is evident, Baroni was not only "leading the way for partnering", he was also "consulting". Acting on the advice contained during that consultation ( With the assistance of strategic consultants at Attain, LLC, we have worked for several months to reposition PDSG through strategic planning and reorganization efforts, and to develop an effective go-to-market strategy for PDSG's Crossflo DataExchange® (CDX) solution set), PDSG now has more than a singular partner.

It surely isn't being suggested that instead of giving due consideration to the consultation recommendations, ie "channel partnering", the BoD should have persisted in holding out for a "named recognition partner" or "buyer"?

The only shareholders who might not fit the "armslength" condition would have had to have some direct dealings with PTSC, and I can well understand how they might be aggrieved at the current development in that it undermines the grounds on which any challenge to the current BoD might be based.

.

.

.

Be well