I see what you're saying, but in your example, it's still ultimately a financial result from a deal announced prior to Jan '08, regardless of whether the result came in Dec '07 or Dec '09. I don't know why Goerner/PTSC would say fully reflected financial results if this were the case. It would seem more clear to say fully reflects the license fees received from those deals, thus leaving your example unambiguously in play. If the wording was as careful as implied by the company, it would seem to me that if your example is correct, the company is purposefully obfuscating the possiblity, which IMO opens them up to liability from shareholders.

I didn't want to go here, but please give this scenario your considered analysis and advise if you still see potential liability from shareholders.

The '584 Appeal, prior to the business resolution, included the Texas defendants as co-defendants along with ARM. There was an MOU, covered by a NDA. Where are the Texas defendants now, and is it possible that they might now be allied with PTSC/TPL in any subsequent prosecution of the '584?

Where is the "financial result" of such an alliance?

Be well