palysone - The 8-K says we settled for a "substantial portion of the face value" of the securities. In accounting terms, face value and par value are the same thing. So essentially, where in the past we got partial redemptions at par value for the illiquid ARS, this time we did not. We settled for something less than that, with the caveat that if they are redeemed by some date certain, then we'd get the balance. If not, then presumably, we lose the difference.

opty - I'm not sure how you can read this as being about about flexing some staying power muscles to TPL. Since the whole ARS issue came to pass, PTSC has luckily been able to slowly get partial redemptions at par. Presumably, the market is getting better, not worse, with respect to the ARS situation. If so, then why would you settle for less than par rather than the par you've received to date, or better yet, the possibility of an appreciation if redeemed during a future improved market. When you consider that at the close of the fiscal year on 5/31, PTSC had $10.3M in cash and equivalents, and that included the money the already borrowed against the ARS, why would an extra $2.5M or so NOW (the likely best scenario net gain after paying off the loan secured by the ARS), make much difference, ESPECIALLY, when it's less than you might get in the future?

It worries me that barely 3 months after PTSC showed $10M in cash and equivalents, they fel the need to settle with DB at LESS than face value as a minimum. Especially so after the posturing they have done and the legal action they've taken. In my opinion, the only way this could've been a win for PTSC is if they settled for par or better, PLUS legal fees and accrued interest NOW (meaning at time of settlement, not at some future possible redemption date). At best, this seems like a salvage manuever to cut legal expenses and focus company resources, OR, a market read by PTSC that the ARS market may be ultimately screwed for some time with NO possible future redemptions, and thus a willingness to take less money now, than wait and continue to battle.

With the credit facility against the ARS already in place, and $10M in the bank, I doubt an extra $2.5M at best is going to scare TPL in any way. At best, this move seems VERY conservative by PTSC, and desparate at worst.