The disclosure of the loan to TPL was in the 10Q, and I strongly suspect that it was a required/SEC mandated disclosure. They didn't have a choice, and it surprises me that you would suggest PTSC somehow hide this loan from shareholders while so many demand greater tranparency.

Nothing in the disclosure suggested that PDS/Alliacense had a shortfall in its financial backing (via PTSC). Adequate funding remains available, even if only via PTSC (and PTSC loans to TPL), to support their ongoing operations.

IMO, if anything, the loan signals confidence; that we are indeed holding out for an event ('336 or other) before licensing, and a recognition that higher licensing fees will flow from that event. Would you rather have seen Alliacense sign a few low-buck licenses to raise capital? What signal (of weakness) would THAT have sent? And what other benefit would have been derived?

Your other alternative solutions, towards hiding the loan, make no sense IMO, e.g., why would PTSC knowingly violate the terms of the MA (in TPL's favor)?

JMHOs,

SGE