Your points are right on the mark and only begin to scrape the surface of the problems that were evident to shareholders, and per CJ's declaration, evident to the company and its management and directors. These points were brought up to the company and its BOD by shareholders IN WRITING even before the time frame to which CJ refers. They were put on notice by shareholders that these were issues that were likely problemetic, YET, those shareholders concerns were dismissed.

Furthermore, the reference in the amended complaint to licenses requiring the consent of the PDS Management committee is disingenous at best. As many have pointed out, the PDS Management committee action required a majority, not a unanimous approval. The 3 person management committee was, until 2010, comprised of 2 TPL employees, and 1 PTSC employee. That this was allowed by our BOD is a dereliction of duty, IMO, not to mention, at odds with the very language of the CommAg. That they allowed it WITHOUT implementing immediate measures to ASSURE hawkish oversight (something that was missing as proven by CJ's very statement), is inexcusable. The REALITY is, per the CEO's written communication to me, they believed the makeup served them well.

For them to cite PDS Management committee approval requirements as some kind of safeguard is laughable in the context of what they allowed structurally.

In essence, PTSC conveyed to shareholders, as you point out, satisfaction with a situation they were not satisfied with, and satisfactory fiduciary oversight of a situation which they admit they had unsatisfactory oversight and understanding.