The way I read that statement is this:

The report fully reflects the financial results - meaning the all of the financial aspects of the deals reported are reflected

All transactions ANNOUNCED prior to the end of Jan 08 - meaning any deal ann announced before end of January 08, which the J's were.

So in my reading, unless a subsequent and new deal is announced with the J's regarding something new at some later date, we aren't getting another dime from them, IMO. Perhaps there is something in the MOU that includes some future business arrangement predicated on a future outcome, but it seems strange to me that TPL would go for that I'm with the rest of people here scratching my head as to why they didn't do better financially from the settlements. However, IMO, the language of the letter and the 10q numbers preclude any additional monies from the J's under these settlements withough opening up PTSC to liability of Reg FD issues, which I would expect that they would never breach.