IMO, your #2 is so out in left field....  Why would they have no confidence about TX?  Remember the Markman?  Yes, the '584 may be in trouble, but the '148 and especially the '336 were solidly "ours" (and I contend that we only need one to be very successful).  TPL in negotiations with 80, 400+ on notice.  Yea, they really want to bail.  Get more out of PTSC than in the open market?  You're guessing.

How about adding to your #1 that Swartz is acting in the best interest of S&L, PTSC and all retail shareholders. 

They don't HAVE TO sell the warrants to PTSC.  They didn't HAVE TO convert any warrants, and it is highly likely IMO that they'll be worth a whole lot more in the future than they are worth now (exponentially more).  But apparently Swartz sees the "balance" through improving the health of PTSC, greatly improving the prospects for the ~40M shares S&L is permitted to hold (offsetting, to some degree, the money that could be made by holding on to the warrants).  I personally see it as generosity to retail.  Yup, S&L made a lot of money off their risk in PTSC.  But I honestly believe that their actions to eliminate the warrants was a sacrifice when compared to the probable greater sums they could make off of them.  And this current action to do away with all remaining warrants indicates that the conversions pre-Markman were probably less about "hedging the bet" and more about improving the health of our company and the stead of all retail shareholders. 

And think about this, unless company policy changes, a divy is coming.  Why sell the warrants NOW when there's free money coming?  So going back to the "you're guessing" (about the possibility of PTSC paying a premium over market), I'd say that if it's small, it'd be a "wash" against the divy money S&L could derive from those warrants.  Same money, coming from the same place.  And tax handling of the divies would have been better (15% vs. whatever).

Give a little credit to S&L.

JMHO,

SGE