"Right now, with the cards dealt to PTSC, what would you do differently?"

Remind me again...who was the dealer?! lol.

List of things to do differently.

• Communicate better.
• Have people in charge capable of overseeing the process properly (previous and current process). Certainly a lawyer who negotiated the defective agreement and a forensic accountant who oversaw it, don't exactly scream capable.
• Cut compensation to send the proper message to the market.
• Provide stewards qualified to steward an emerging technology company (PDSG) to success. What qualifications to Johnson, Felcyn and Flowers have in this regard?
• AGGRESSIVELY pursue Leckrone. So far, PTSC's first volley was to lend money. Once they were forced to file suit to CYA after HTC's disclosure, they proceeded to subsidize Leckrone's payroll. They further gave him repreive of his obligations in PDS. Then partially settled in a fashion that gave Leckrone 95% of a $7M quarter. Hardly aggressive as you imply.
• Develop an end game. Do we have a linear strategy or a comprehensive one. Do we have people savvy enough to have other end game options that they can bring to bear on Leckrone (ie. sell MMP interest, partner with others, partner directly with Moore) so that his options are limited. Or are we following the try to settle, if that doesn't work, try to litigate, if that doesn't work, try to appeal, if that doesn't work, etc. Savvy business people leverage multiple scenarios and play TRUE HARD BALL in situations like this. Maybe we are, but all we see is huff and puff, and appease Leckrone to try to grease the wheels.
• Eliminate the questionable perception issues.

There are probably many more things I'd do if I were privvy to the inside scoop and responsible for executing a successful strategy. Some of these I mention above I might have to amend if I were as well. Hard to say. But many people here (including myself) have offered many similar answers to your questions, yet you continue to say they haven't and ask the same again.

Additionally, you promote the idea that a resolution of the vTPL case will open up the revenue dam, stating our revenues are simply delayed. That sounds great, but the reality is likely to be still some hard sledding even after resolution, though hopefully we'll get back to at least the nominal revenues of recent past.

You often beat your chest in asking the wrong question as well. For example, you asked basically what could PTSC have done better to solve / respond to the "E" issue. The reality is they could have avoided it altogether. On option would have been by filing on accelarated filing timeline, but as a non-accelerated filer, afterall, the timing is up to them and they have typically been an acceleratred filer, so the timing shoudn't have been an issue to complete it in time, just checking the different box at the top. Or the could have filed a PR & 8K notifying officially of the change as another option. Likely there are other. The point is they wound up as usual, reactionary instead of proactive.