No offense to you, it's just that your post prompted this response. Maybe it's just "Monday morning syndrome", but I've posted repeatedly about "evidence" and "investigations", and it thus continues to amaze me that people don't seem to understand these concepts.
One need not have, and rarely does have, full and complete "proof" or "evidence" of wrongdoing in order to validly request that an investigation be instituted by an official agency. Indeed, that's why investigations are started --- to find proof and evidence if such exists. But merely to start, one need only make allegations of misconduct that are based on known facts and/or reasonable suspicions. Conversely, if all of the proof had to be gathered first by those who feel they have been wronged, then there would be no need for the official investigation.
Sometimes an investigation results in proof of wrongdoing and/or criminal conduct, and sometimes it doesn't --- that's what investigations are for. By analogy, my wife and I had to take our daughter to the hospital a couple of weeks ago because she was having symptoms that her doctor thought might be a quite serious gall bladder dysfunction --- but as it turned out, it was nothing serious, and was taken care of by a couple of over-the-counter tablets. The point is that "investigtion", this time in a medical context, was required to know whether there was a serious problem or not. If you want an example in a "hard crime" context, consider that just because a dead body is found doesn't necessarily mean there has been a murder --- investigation is often required to determine the circumstances.
If we want to talk about possible "wrongdoing" by PTSC, the most glaring example IMO would be that the management of a public company, in effect, transferred complete control of its only source of substantial revenue, the MMP, to a private company. The mere fact that the public company was not in control of itself, and thus subjected its shareholders to outside control, may be enough to raise the eyebrows of the SEC, especially when other facts then start being added to the heap (PIPE financing, dividends paid on warrants, no insider buying, insufficient oversight by PTSC's "forensic accountant", and on and on).
Other examples of potential "wrongdoing" by PTSC may include several of the items listed by LL in his post of November 18, at 12:07. Whether those items, or any others, are legally actionable or not would be determined by an "investigation" of the type mentioned herein.
The point, again, is that very little "proof" or "evidence" is sometimes required to create interest in an investigation by an official agency. Thereafter, it's the investigation that generates the complete proof and evidence, if in fact such exists.
I hope this is helpful to you. Best wishes to you and all.
