Though the pertinence of this info to our situation today is questionable, I do appreciate your interest in knowing about the past. Without any investigation, and with a very weak recollection of the details from some 6 years ago while my attention was focused elsewhere, my initial reaction is that perhaps CJ had to assume the lead attorney role when Beatie and Osborne got the boot - to immediately fill the void (as I strongly suspect that SOMEONE had to reside in this role as a "constant" while engaged in litigation - there had to be a designated point of contact at all times). Personally, I do not believe the issue is worthy of the expenditure of time/effort to obtain the proper conclusion, but this scenario makes sense to me. Further, it may have been that CJ held this role through dismissal of the legal action, as settlement negotiations were actively in process, so no new/replacement counsel was secured. All a SWAG by me, but it makes sense.

As for my concerns about the dividends, I should reiterate a couple of things to qualify. The first dividend announcement was a surprise to virtually everyone. Some liked it, but many thought those resources could have been better directed elsewhere. Many argued that those resources would have been better used for M&A action, presumeably to acquired a predictable alternative revenue stream. They were VERY vocal about it, for months on end (and they got their wish).

I argued vigorously that the risk of M&A was far too great (especially in light of the fact that we already had a significant level of risk on our table), and that the resources would be best used to somehow eliminate the sizeable outstanding warrants, because they scared the heck out of the big buck, more astute investor pool (three of such were contacts of mine - two being very, very wealthy who I knew dabbled in high tech investments - who I directed attention to PTSC. They all looked, and their feedback was that the warrants would have to be gone before they would invest).

My fall-back positions were to buy back stock on the open market to reduce float (along with the other benefits of share buybacks) or, to obtain that desired predictable alternative revenue stream, make absolute secure investments (Treasuries?) to lock down predictable interest income - maintaining the principle intact. Minimal risk, approaching zero risk. And either way, the funds would be almost instantly retrievable if needed.

After it was all said and done, and two more dividends were issued, followed by the elimination of warrants, I recognized (and posted) that the dividends may have been a means to a desireable end (of the warrants). Perhaps (in our "outside looking in" point of view) not the best way to go about it, but it may have been the best they could negotiate. While this is certainly arguable-in-the-blind by even me on a couple of levels, one of my desired objectives was met (though only one of those three wealthy investor contacts ultimately invested - as far as I know - and unfortunately the least wealthy of the three, by orders of magnitude - worth mere millions versus hundreds of millions).

History buffs can access my post history to verify the above (this is not a shot at you Laurie, but more at those that suggest - no, state as if fact - that my opinions have always been in perfect lock-step with those of PTSC management). I've had my criticisms, even recently.

But all of this is a case of looking over the shoulder, to the point of staring at the ocean after the water has gone under the bridge and flown all the way to the sea. It has no impact or influence on things going forward - to the future - where money is to be (hopefully) made. You cannot possibly make money on the past, unless you are a history book publisher/distributor or Ken Burns.

But, again, I can certainly understand your interest. The PTSC story is beyond amazing. I cannot wait to see how it ends! LOL Currently we await the classic climatic event(s) that could bring the "happily ever after" close of this mystery/suspense novel. That is why we're all here, right?

FWIW,

SGE