Even if the the letter today does not help the pps, perhaps these two points will help you sleep.

1. There was a mutual motion for a 30 day stay for the purpose of negotiating a settlement. Upon expiration of the 30 day stay, who went to the court to ask for an additional stay? Not TPL, but the defendants. Apparently the court told the defendants the motion will not fly unless it is a joint motion. I suggest that concessions were made and then it became a joint motion. So, from this how does one presume that TPL had their back against the wall. Doesn't sound like it to me.

2. While the wording of the settlement pr must be accurate, the choice of words obviously are meant to provide as much ambiguity as possible. Note that TPL did not grant a license as part of the settlement. They could easily have said that, if that were the case. What they granted were the rights to the MMP. That, unlike the granting of a license, could be withdrawn, IMO. And that is the difference. TPL can void that grant. In the form of a license, only means that what the agreement looks like. Does this sound like TPL was negotiating from a position of weakness? Give me another sound reason for this unusual wording.

All IMHO Opty