Thank you for your comment, which is mutual.

My plan worked: your dictionary gathers no dust (smiley)

In the example given, and were there only four seats available, the result would be the same using either majority or plurality voting, Carlton M Johnson, Jr. would no longer be a member of the BoD.

As the number of seats available is at the discretion of the BoD, why have four or six if five are standing for re-election? Perhaps PTSC could give you a reason.

Using your six standing for five seats scenario, what if Felcyn received the least votes and had to stand down?

Who on this new BoD would meet the exchange listing rules and SEC disclosure rules of a "financial expert", for example? If the sixth nominee were such a financial expert, how would they be better qualified? What if a different nominee, say Johnson, lost their seat, would shareholders desire a lawyer on the BoD to ensure legal compliance?

Who is to guarantee that a different accountant or lawyer or any other BoD member would, by their mere presence, increase the share price?

The only viable alternative remaining is the total replacement of the existing BoD with a new slate of nominees with reasons given as to how they would be better able to perform than the incumbents.

Which brings us back to indemnifying PTSC.

.

.

.

Be well