Good question, and there are existing flaws in the thought. But, more directly, yes, out of the kindness of their hearts and....GREED.  IF they can "see the light (big bright dollar sign)", they may recognize that retaining their core holding (this assumes warrants exhausted) for a longer term could yield an exponential increase in value.  So it becomes a matter of patience and risk tolerance.  Soon-to-unfold events may clarify things for them.  Then throw in the PR message, stating the (my) proposed agreement to hold their shares for certain cited PPS thresholds beginning at $5.  I suggested $5 for an obvious reason.  But the message suggests an expectation.

To make this as clear as I can.... I want the warrants gone. That done, I DO NOT want to see S&L continue to dump into every bit of good news/volume simply to reduce their holding and statisfy their immediate greed.  I would prefer to see them sit on those shares, allowing the PPS to rise without their henderance. Though it would be nice if they just sat on those shares forever, that isn't even remotely realistic, so set up a prohibition schedule. This provides S&L with (hopefully perceived as do-able) targets, they calculate away, and figure that gee, there is a chance we could get ten times our money (compared to now).  Okay, they should be able to figure this out for themselves....but, again, throw in the PR.  Now, perceptions of potential investors:  warrants gone, 10% holder agrees to sit tight till $5 PPS (and then can reduce by the example 10% till $10 PPS).  Perception?

Recognized flaws:

S&L doesn't HAVE TO agree to do any such thing, and it may not be considered in their best interest.

No real gaurantees yet as to our future (never will be, but some strong clues may be forthcoming).  Risk - how much and when?

Now the perplexing one -which also becomes a poser for you - DIVYS.  As I stated when the last divys were announced, this throws a monkey wrench in the whole "sell to convert" theory. Since the divys were to also go to qualified warrant holders (i.e., S&L), why did they do that?  IMO, it is most desireable for PTSC and US for the warrants to get converted and be gone.  So why did PTSC act to basically incentivize S&L to stop converting?  And why announce their intent to divy-up every six months?

Many suggest the divys were offerred to appease S&L, and throw a bone to the retails.  The 10Q will clarify a lot.....(OS warrants).

But which way does (S&L's) greed fall?  Sell, get money OR sit, get money AND retain core holding (sell later for more money)?  It's a head-scratcher....

So, now that my brain is starting to hurt, we KNOW S&L has been dumping/converting until recently.  We'll KNOW more Monday. This suggests to me that they understand that the warrants are a drag on the stock, and were doing something about it.  Then the divys.....  Perhaps to incentivize S&L to hold their (post warrant) core?

It's a difficult argument, either way.  You seem to suggest that IMMEDIATE greed is S&L's motivation, and that is understandable, but isn't revealed in our little history.  Again, we KNOW that S&L has sold to convert, and that they've done it in a very controlled fashion (well, I think I KNOW this).  Why?  If immediate greed were the base motivation, why not sell their core 40M shares? They paid next to nothing for them, and have gotten more than their investment back in past divys.  It's pure gold!  So their level and immediacy of greed is questionable....leaving open a possibility.  Thus "my little fantasy"....a win-win-win proposition.

I hope the divys were for posturing for "the fantasy".  And, when I get frustrated with S&L, I thank my lucky stars that they aren't THAT greedy.  If they decided to dump the whole shee-bang, where would we be?  Some scream about the seeming S&L rape to date, now we're talking homicide.  But it hasn't happenned, and doesn't appear likely.  Kindness of their hearts? 

The PTSC/S&L "plan" (assuming there is one, and they are actually formulating any cooperative "plan") is perplexing - or maybe it's simple!? 

Sorry for the extended babble (like I NEVER do that! LOL).

I definitely KNOW nuttin'! "Whattayouguysnuts???" IDONO!

SGE

PS:  From many moons ago (6-8 years?), and to hopefully cause you to chorttle: What was it the Chief asked Agarn at the bottom of the canyon after the tribe was stampeeded off that cliff?   

Planned version, ultimate version  (okay, not the planned version, Agora will pop ya!)

No, it wasn't "it's a balloooon!".

Sure hope it was you I had that conversation with!