As I hopefully sufficiently clarified in my subsequent post, I'm not calling for legal action by shareholders against PTSC, but simply VIGILANCE with respect to PTSC's actions and TPL's strategies.

From that quote from my post, I intend only to say that PTSC shareholders need to demand transparency and clarity from PTSC management that the agreements they've revised, and the strategies they're a part of (which clearly include the TPL Chapter 11), are not only NOT detrimental to PTSC shareholders, but rather are BENEFICIAL to PTSC shareholders. That's what I mean by "removing the snakes". I don't believe the players are going to change or that shareholders, at this point, should seek legal recourse to change of players.

Resorting simply to "hope" as you say is to miss the opportunity to be as fully educated as you can and know whether one should sell or perhaps buy more.

We're STILL owners of PTSC, and the management and BOD are STILL required to execute with fiduciary responsibility and in the BEST interests of shareholders. Just because we're waiting for outcomes from the ITC and the NCDA, doesn't mean we're relegated to simply blindly accepting whatever PTSC does. Shareholders rights and responsibilities don't change simply because the business process is at one stage or another in its activities.

Shareholder activism doesn't have to be in the form of legal action nor does it have to be considered an adversarial position. I'm simply pointing out that there is substantial evidence to support that transparency from PTSC is justified and will be beneficial to shareholders as they will be more educated when it comes from the directly from the company rather than from anonymous message board posters, the management team becomes more accountable. Accountability is usually an incentivizing force to then do the right thing. Hope from shareholders on the other hand, clearly is not.