It bothers me that 6 or more others "liked" this particular post, defending the BOD.
From a strict business perspective, we are customers of PTSC in that we have bought a piece of this company on the understanding that, legally, its BOD has an obligation to protect the value of what we bought and increase it by diligently and effectively producing the product it offered.
The company is now single-sourced for its only product offering, which is a closed license for MMP. That single-source, TPL, started OK but then through many mis-steps started to delay delivery of its product, reduce its quality, charge questionable additional amounts, etc etc.
Despite many complaints by us, the customers, the BOD, our "primary contractor", took years to take any action against this non-performance and then withdrew or settled the action and agreed to terms less favorable to its customers.
In any other business, the vendor would have been thrown out even if it meant a hiatus in product delivery while a new vendor came up to speed.
I have personally done this in business (incompetent or hostile sub-contractors and independent contractors) and personally (a buidling contractor who took money during unannounced bankruptcy, suspended work on a major unfinished job and let one of his own subcontractors threaten me if I didn't pay him directly for work I had already paid for to the main contractor). The latter was immediately reported to the local police. The former, main, contractor was immediately reported to his licensing authority and local permit agency which removed him as lead contractor.
The difference here is that I took immediate actions, I already had all the documentation I needed (including building plans, a rough parallel to reverse engineering information), I had already researched and agreed terms with replacement vendors and I was determined to minimize damage and delay.
An argument could be made that we, the customers, should have fired the BoD. We tried, but allegedly we had no standing under corporate law. Another argument is that we should have salvaged what little of our investment we could and taken it elsewhere. I can't argue with that but it is at the stage where I would rather fight than flee.
