For everyone's consideration. I don't intend to debate this - I'm just putting it out there for people to think about, opine against, and of course criticize.

TPL has sure put things in a pickle, it does appear.

It is interesting to me that there is no sympathy for TPL, but there is for Chuck Moore. I don't get it.... Where did TPL's money go other than to fund Moore's pet projects? People talk of poor Chuck, he shouldn't have trusted Lecky. At this point, I suggest it should be the other way around - Lecky shouldn't have trusted Chuck. With this mindset (possibly wrong, I admit), who ultimately put us in this current situation? The PTSC BoD, Lecky or Chuck? I'm thinking it's probably the latter (with the others contributing in a significant way). Based on everything I've read, he's the one with zero business sense. Sub-zero!

Now here's a thought regarding the law suit announced yesterday. As I understand it, this pertains to the $1M UNsecured note (the prior $950K note being secured by future MMP revenues).

Here's what I'm thinking, and it relates to that Commercialization Agreement clause Milestone recently posted here a couple of days ago (the one where Lamberts and I went a couple of rounds over - as Wolf put it - "SGE1's Fuzzy math"; BTW, Lamberts honorably ended that debate).

Here we have a dispute over the $1M unsecured note going to the court. Isn't it reasonable to expect the court to have a look at the TPL/PTSC relationship and business agreements between the two entities? Having looked at those agreements (the MA and the CA), and then looking to the instant dispute, isn't it reasonable to (maybe) expect the court to see that clause regarding funding shortfalls and shifts in PDS percentage interest and conclude "here's the remedy"? After all, when a dispute is presented to the court, it is done seeking a remedy.

The court could then direct enforcement of that clause so both parties become "whole". TPL apparently doesn't have the money, and that clause appears designed for such a thing (the "almost funny" thing being that I suspect TPL forced that clause into the CA with the thought that it would potentially be an avenue to secure a greater interest in the MMP due to a PTSC failure, never envisioning one of their own).

Just throwing the thoughts out there.... PTSC could wind up with another 10% interest in PDS/the MMP (making it a 60/40 split).

Now, in light of the above, it begs the question "why take it to the court - if the remedy is there?". I suspect that PTSC didn't want to force the issue directly with TPL due to the politics of the situation, possibly finding themselves in a world of hurt. So PTSC opts to let the court make it happen. Let TPL argue the matter in/with the court. And PTSC walks away saying "don't blame us, blame the court".

I'm probably all wet, but I am interested in all of your input, particularly that of our resident attorneys.

As for who's paying the attorney's toward licensing, litigation, and PTO actions, or better asked, ARE THEY BEING PAID, this is a concern - maybe. IMO, we don't know their compensation arrangements, but it could be that it's on some sort of contingency basis on all fronts (or could be changed to such). In any case, in today's world (economy) and recognizing that all these attorneys are intimately aware of the potential of the MMP, I seriously doubt any are going to up and quit, or even slow down. Each front represents a direct or indirect ultimate reward.

But here too, I may be all wet.

Fire away.... Please try to be constructive. But recognizing the speculative nature of all the above, I honestly don't care if some/many just say SGE is full of it (because I acknowledge that I very well may be).

FWIW,

SGE