This will be my last post on the subject, but I believe respect is warranted when there is a valid basis for it. You are right about accepting legal advice of counsel, but as for me, I provide an explanation of the advice I give.
No public company that cares about being shareholder-oriented should expect those shareholders to simply sit back and accept whatever the company decides to do, especially when the practice at issue is so far removed from the ordinary. I've had many situations in my own career in which my clients actually want me to, in general terms, announce to opposing counsel and/or third parties the basis as to why we've taken our position. That's not uncommon either.
For instance, in PTSC's case, our "business partner" once made an announcement at a shareholder meeting that the details of licenses/settlements would no longer be announced because he didn't want other potential licensees knowing in advance what someone else had paid. That's very common in the industry, but regardless of such, the point is that the underlying basis of the strategy, in very general terms, was publicly announced.
In the present instance, no one is asking for publication of a detailed analysis or written opinion letter from Mr. Handal on the subject. However, if EDIG intends to continue to refrain from announcing the mere fact of licenses/settlements even in view of the significant change in status that has occurred, then shareholders deserve to know a bit more than "advice of counsel" as to why the Company appears to be departing from common practice in this context.
