PTSC initiated an arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association against the three Crossflo principal officers who were signatories to the Merger Agreement alleging they provided false representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement and alleging nondisclosure of information about Crossflo during the due diligence process leading up to the merger
Could PTSC have initiated, or more importantly, should they have initiated a similar proceeding against Nanotronics (or Falk) alleging false representations and warranties and non disclosure of information about ownership of the ShBoom (MMP) technology during the due diligence process leading up to the merger?
Why was PTSC ready to strike a deal with TPL (which resulted in the Master Agreement) if they truly believed in absolute ownership of the technology? Could TPL have promised an incredible revenue stream if we teamed up. Could a promise of such income have prompted Swartz to influence a deal benefitting him with a new agreement and the possibility of dividends in the very near future. Which, as we all know, was something this company had never done in the history of the company ......and then they did it again.
Just thinking out loud.
