I had to read that 3 times when this first came out because I was thinking the same as you - does this mean more dilution? After the 3rd time I came to the conclusion in laymens terms that because of provisions, or lack thereof, in our warrant agreements (I believe it was probably something like having a specific floor for the conversion stated) you could not determine a cap on the amount of shares that may be issued assuming all of the warrants were converted. Becuase you could not determine a cap, you have to assume that you may not have enough authorized shares to cover. For this reason, you have to treat the warrant ``liability`` (possible conversion) differently on the balance sheet than the way we had been treating it.

Does that make sense to you?

Disclaimer - this is only my opinion after reading and interpreting the 8K. I haven`t read the warrant agreements in depth, so I could be wrong on this. However I go back to statements that the company has previously issued basically saying that warrant repricing was over. For this reason I would think that all of the above is a moot point. However with this seeming contradiction (the company basically saying there is now a warrant conversion floor versus GAAP saying you can`t treat it that way) I must state that I am ASSUMING that PTSC is not changing it`s stance on the repricing.

My head hurts. And oh by the way, Drebbin, you are a piece of garbage.