How many times must you repeat this known concern? But is it really a concern at all? I think not... Reading the PR at
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060210/20060210005292.html?.v=1
It says:
``To facilitate the conversion of the debentures, agreements between the Company and Lincoln and Swartz which prohibit each of Lincoln and Swartz from owning more than 4.99% of the Company`s Common Stock will be amended to allow them to own up to 9.99% of the Common Stock. With their holdings exceeding 5% they will need to make appropriate SEC filings upon future dispositions of the Company`s stock.``
And:
``The Company will have the right to redeem up to 20 million warrants owned by Lincoln and Swartz.``
Now, if the agreement between PTSC and S and L PROHIBITS S and L from owning more than UP TO 9.99% (and they only held 4.99% previously), then it cannot happen. S and L will have to take necessary action to assure they don`t violate the agreement. It`s an S & L problem, not a PTSC problem.
And:
The company has the right to redeem $20M in warrants.
Presumeably, they`d take that action before initiating a stock buy-back. How does that affect the percentage? It does give S & L some breathing room before they MUST act, but that`s assuming that they are RIGHT AT 9.99% right now. I suspect they hold somewhat less, maybe a lot less, than the exact threshold.
So your oft repeated ``issue`` is a non-issue for PTSC. The only way to argue this is for you to show me exactly how many shares of common stock PTSC could buy back before S & L bump their heads on 9.99%, and then explain how S&L can ignore a prohibition in an agreement they signed and for which they received consideration, and not take necessary action (which would be cheaper than a dispute with PTSC).
Have at it, or acknowledge that this is a non-issue for PTSC. Man up.
SGE
