Just wondering, do you have a reading or reading comprehension problem. If you read the post that l2007s posted, you'll see all of your "technical' objections are stipulated. The point of the post is that PTSC has in effect, through its abdication of control over it's only source of net revenue to Dan Leckrone and TPL, made him/them de facto officers or directors.

You seem so intent on ridiculing and diminishing others, that you fail to read the actual posts, and instead are more concerned with preparing your rebuttal. Kind of like the speak, and then get prepared to speak again. While you may "hear" enough to formulate your comments, you seem to ignore the whole "listening" portion of dialogue.

To follow your logic, PTSC could hire a consultant to provide all of the services that the CEO provides, be involved in all of those functions, yet due to that consultant not actually holding the CEO's title, there should be no requirement for that consultant to disclose / report their stock trades. Perhaps that's "technically legally" accurate, but from a fiduciary perspective, for PTSC to create such an arrangement and not require the reporting, falls short of exhibiting fiduciarly responsibility in that they have clearly provided the opportunity for the abuse of the relationship.