Not suggesting there is one, other than a complete open book policy by TPL that allows detailed breakdowns of the bills, and detailed verification of those bills.

To put it in context some might understand better. If Alliacense is building a house for TPL and PTSC to jointly share (representing MMP Licensing), and another for Dan Leckrone to live in (representing CORE Flash or Fast Logic), both on the same block (representing a company that licenses both MMP and another Portfolio). Alliacense expends money to buy a bunch of trusses for the roof, and a bunch of lumber for the framing and have it deliveredthat is delivered to the same location. They can essentially present PDS with a bill for Roof Trusses and Lumber for X amount of dollars representing part or the total cost for the trusses and lumber. Assuming that bill isn't obviously orders of magnitude out of whack, PDS would be liable for that bill provided the management committee approved it. That bill could have contained all or some of the lumber and trusses for Leckrone's house as well as that for TPL & PTSC's house, and there would little PTSC could do to dispute it because it's not discernable that it's for two different houses because it was delivered to one location and is not itemized to a level that would make it absolutely clear.

TPL isn't going to make a fuss over it as Alliacense AND TPL and Leckrone are all related parties (and in essence = Leckrone) and it doesn't really matter who pays for it as long as it is paid. An Independent auditor would be unlikely to discover such an arrangement as they would be privy to a bill that represents a cost for lumber and trusses that could well be within a reasonable range, and that was paid for by PDS in the amount billed, and would clear the audit, but not expose that the bill also covered the costs for some or all of Leckrone's house as well. PTSC has little ability to object as they see the bill for trusses and lumber and that it's reasonable as far as they can tell, and the other two commmittee members are approving it, so there's no apparent issue.

Similarly, what's to prevent Alliacense from having their people code time cards to MMP work, when in fact they might be working on something else. If they work in an extra $95K ($23K per quarter) over the year of licensing efforts (expenses that per this 10q show run in the million or more range per quarter), they've essentially recouped all of the interest money they "agreed" to pay PTSC for the loan. Granted, the PDS net proceeds that TPL shares in are reduced by the same $95K, so in essence, TPL would only get 5% of the money back, but the opportunity is there for it to happen, and the controls to prevent it are missing per PTSC's own admission.

With that in mind, and considering the history of the TPL & PTSC relationship, the history of those issues, it and the opportunities clearly open to TPL, you'd be hard pressed to convince me and others that it hasn't, isn't or won't happen. Factor in that it isn't CJ's or Felcyn's or Falk's or Flowers' own wallet that the money comes out of, and the history of the other business transactions they've made, and I think the incentive to prevent such a scenario is lacking as well, IMO.