"Confusing the issues" doesn't change the the overall conclusion of the matter. You are right in that you didn't file suit. I was going by memory and being very busy was putting down generalities, but still the underlying conclusion is the same.

Here it is, a little more accurately described. I may still have some of the minute details wrong, but again, that doesn't change the conclusion.

In laymen's terms - you wanted the power to issue PTSC preferred shares to have to be ratified by shareholders, and not leave that power in just the hands of management. So you proposed to have this action passed and binding to PTSC. PTSC, as they would any proposal of this nature, asked for guidance from counsel. Counsel came back citing cases where pretty much Delaware law says they don't want the issuance of stock to be in the hands of shareholders, it should be kept in the power of management. Therefore your proposal was denied and kept out of the proxy. In my subsequent reading of other such cases with other companies it became pretty clear to me that this was standard fair for this kind of thing.

Now what part of the above is wrong to the extent that it changes the conclusion? I am going by memory of things I read a few years ago. However, I know you have detailed documents to support whatever challenge you want to make. So go ahead, prove me wrong.

The "fought tooth and nail" quote was quoting something that you posted on a message board. Don't bother asking me to find it. The readers here can judge the reasonableness of such a request.

Now we'll see who the liar is.