OK, let's look at a recent suit:

The Complaint charges Heartland and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Heartland provides bank card payment processing services to merchants in the United States. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company was in imminent danger of having the security of its processing system breached; (2) that the Company had not taken the proper steps to secure its systems; (3) that further, it was likely that the Company would not be aware such a breach occurred until weeks or months later; (4) that the Company had been notified of a potential breach in its security system; (5) that as a result, the Company would face significant costs related to, among other things, liability and the implementation of proper measures; and (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

On January 20, 2009, the Company shocked investors when it disclosed for the first time that it was the victim of a security breach within its processing system in 2008. The Company stated that it found evidence of an intrusion the previous week and notified federal law enforcement agencies. Heartland stated that it immediately took a number of steps to further secure its systems. Then, on January 22, 2009, Bloomberg published an article about the breach. The article stated that the breach may have involved 100 million accounts, which would be double the size of the largest such theft in history. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $5.93 per share, or 42.03 percent, to close on January 22, 2009 at $8.18 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On February 24, 2009, the Company announced disappointing quarterly financial results in an earnings press release. Additionally, the Company announced that it was cutting its dividend 72 percent, and further warned that it could face losses due to the security breach. Later that day, during an earnings conference call, defendants disclosed that the Company was under investigation by the SEC, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Federal Trade Commission, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.31 per share, or 30.20 percent, to close on February 24, 2009 at $5.34 per share, also on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit www.btkmc.com

http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=c...

Please read through the grounds for the suit then tell me what PTSC has done, or not done, which would merit any legal action.

For those promoting the "Buy one Portfolio License, get another one free" line of argument, sue the licensor, not the owner of the patents.

Ah, but they tell us nothing about new licensees. Please take a look at ARM or any other industry competitor and show me where full details of every license is given. It doesn't happen unless a point is being made by the company, and even then the details are only partial.

So, just what could a 25% block achieve? A seat on the Board? It certainly wont effect a reduction in salaries, nor will it open a flood of information, in my very humble opinion.

Which brings me to thoughts about a new shareholder representative. There is no need. Each shareholder is their own representative. Each and every shareholder with a concern or point to make, not axe to grind however, has the option of contacting PTSC directly, speaking at the conference call, or posting on any message board, of which Agoracom is definitely monitored.

This leaves me with but one final question:

Activism, but to what end?

Be well