"We will provide details on the litigation as circumstances permit, however we ask our shareholders to appreciate that we remain under some contractual restrictions in regard to public disclosures pertaining to the MMP™ Portfolio, and we also wish to avoid any public sharing of information that could impair our litigation strategy. We regret having to take these measures, but we believe they are in the best long-term interests of Patriot, its shareholders, and our ownership in the MMP™ Portfolio.”

Key phrase:

"We regret having to take these measures, but we believe they are in the best long-term interests of Patriot, its shareholders, and our ownership in the MMP™ Portfolio.”

And just what historical evidence do they base that conclusion? Now if they do not follow thru with the law suit and continue this charade I am quite sure that they will be exposed, but unfortunately too late. So even though details cannot be given why not at least some amount of determination and continued course of action cannot be expressed? In other words an update now and then? For instance, why would you increase the amount of payment to a fund(PDS) to help pay even more expenses to a company that you accuse of fraud? Is that in the best interest of shareholders? Since they promised to provide details that at the very least should be explained I would think? Of course, unless it was all a charade from the get go. Don't bother explaining I think I get your drift.