Okay, since your post, reported as a violation but allowed to stand by Ron with an "ignore violation", apprently this subject is fair game once again.

First, this is a completely different circumstance. But let's make an attempt to bring them into parrallel.

Had PTSC issued guidance regularly on a certain matter,

guidance that was available independently,

but had built an expectation that they would timely provide such guidance in the future as they done in the past,

then they deliver such guidance three weeks late,

and deliberately altered that guidance to disguise the fact that it had been withheld,

and that guidance included multiple bits of information that could reasonably have been expected to be "tradeable" for a profit to them at the expense of (other) shareholders,

and if PTSC had then taken actions to permit the creation of doubt and citations of dire consequences due to that lacking guidance,

and then if they finally provided that altered guidance immediately before such guidance was known to be forthcoming from another source (the court) where it was known that shareholders would be paying attention,

then we have an equal circumstance.

And apparently, per YOU, this would be okay.

We agree to disagree.

SGE