refused to submit their own Plan to the BK court, and since they are active participating members of the Creditors Committee, PTSC endorses the Creditor's Plan.
I can't wait to see read or hear what strained and artifical arguments PTSC makes to the Court in opposing Moore's Plan; that's IF they have the courage to actually make it separate and apart from the Creditors general opposition arguments.
As usual, the PTSC BOD and their decisionmaking is on the wrong side of the right judgement call.
Cliff and our BOD has proven themselves irrelevant in any accidential success the company may stumble into, but they are fully responsible for the years of failure and ruin it's become.
Congratulations to our arrogant, confused, and greedy BOD; what a stinky pile of dog feces leadership you provide.
Moore's Plan is not ideal or a panacea, it has it's own issues, but it's fairer and stands a better chance of financial and litigation success than what PTSC is trying to push onto the court.
I'll take my chances with Moore, PTSC has proven for years they are incapable of making decisions which increase Shareholder value.
Maintaining an exclusive Leckrone entity licensing relationship, with additional provisions that allow for (the likely) bifurcation of the infringment/licensing program, is a receipe certain for disaster; especially in any situation where PTSC "losership" is allowed any sort of influence on decisionmaking or strategic planning.
