Comment from @pennydollar at another forum@pennytodollar Also, as far as the info provided, the allegation looks like: Peter used a patent his dad owned < Peter's dad made a claim against him < the company came to the agreement to pay Peter's dad's company in a settlement < sometime before the settlement, Peter became Power of Attorney for his dad and defacto took control (to some degree at least) of his dad's company < stock price went up. As far as we know, all of this would have happened regardless of Peter being POA because the claim went against PYR before that happened and the company would likely have wanted to settle as that claim would likely be problematic for any customer buying that tech from PYR. Peter allegedly did NOT disclose that his father's company had become a related party through his POA over his dad at the time of settlement and this seems to be ultimately where the case stems from. Obviously AMF sees that as problematic, but I don't think anything would have been different for the actions of PYR throughout it all, which is why until we get a better idea of the actual accusation, and see it resolved in court, I'm not overly concerned regarding the company. Even if he gets found guilty of it, I don't even have a fundamental issue with the company paying that settlement and assume they would have either way.
----
Is the highlighted text above publicly divulged information?