I agree that regardless of the terms of PTSC's loan to TPL, what's right is right and TPL SHOULD not avoid the obligation. However, I don't discount the IMO high probability that TPL intends to do what's right as soon as the most palatable opportunity presents itself.

But I have to say that your reaction surprises me a little. If everyone consistently did what was right (in the eyes of someone who feels they were wronged), I suspect you'd be seeking a new line of work.

And I have never suggested or even hinted that TPL should not live up to their obligations, assuming they exist, to pay CM what he may be due. Keep in mind what has been suggested by others in the CM vs. TPL case - that CM is calculating what he is due based on GROSS proceeds of the MMP, not NET. Hence the interest in TPL's accounting.

"If TPL in fact has not honored its obligations to PTSC and/or Moore, it is clearly a case of "shame on TPL", not the other way around."

What are you, some BoD apologist? LOL No, in my strong opinion, PTSC should always take reasonable measures to protect their assets/investments, as should any business or person. IMO this is clearly a case of "shame on PTSC", in addition to "shame on TPL".

Do you ever advise your clients in making business arrangements with partners or others to "just keep the faith", or to include available protective measures, like securing loans with viable collateral?

As for TPL/Leckrone integrity, I think we have always had concerns with that. Whether a seeming lack of integrity on one front translates to such on other fronts may be a bit of a leap (more a hop! LOL). But what is the prudent reaction? What steps can PTSC reasonably take on suspicions? I think we agree that desolving the relationship (MA/CA) with TPL would be a disaster.

Thank you for this exchange. I hope you see no disrespect in the above, as none is intended.

SGE