I think I'd be more apt to recognize and support Ms. Felcyn's abilities in this regard if she had proactively disallowed PTSC to lend TPL money in an unsecured fashion as they did. So, while she may be qualified on paper to perform the task, again, the execution is a bit lacking. Or perhaps it's the promotion of this kind of activity that serves as job security to her so indeed she has some auditing to chair, lol.

Just imagine if the '336 NIRC had been issued in an environment where "productive licensing" hadn't been stopped due to legal battles between licensing partners. Instead, the NIRC is issued during a time where the partnership remains in a cloude due to PTSC entering into agreements with TPL to lend them money in an unsecured fashion, thus allowing TPL to default with little recourse to PTSC other than to file a lawsuit against their licensing partner?

Is there any reason both loans couldn't have simply been tied to the license revenues receivable that were coming in or would come in in the future with an ironclad agreement that put the money in PTSC's bank account as soon as it was paid?

Instead, contemporaneously with the time frame that the USPTO was expected to finally rule favorably on the '336 and presumably eliminate the MAJOR obstacle to the company's success, this BOD created as situation whereby they had to throw the whole licensing partnership into turmoil to protect the company's interest, just month's before the '336 receives it's 2nd NIRC in less than 1 year.

Oh, but of course, this was beyond their control, and is simply TPL's fault for not paying back the loans. PTSC should have been able to categorically trust TPL to live up to thier promise on the unsecured loan.