Actually it was a joint request.The 1st set the definitions to be used in classifying the confidential documents in the joint request.The 2nd one by the TPL attorney outlined what documents TPL considered confidential and why.It seems the filings were brought about by the contents of court documents related to the “improper contacts” issue.Due to the nature of the conversations between the parties, both sides saw disadvantages in their public disclosure and moved to seal the documents.

Are there good business reasons for nondisclosure?You bet.Many are listed in the filing.However, my narrow irritation, out of the many irritations available, still revolves around the formal admission at item point 3, that TPL discusses private business services arrangements between TPL and HTC, while simultaneously negotiating settlement for the MMP.

Even a simple statement to HTC that “we (TPL) “will have an interest doing a little business after this negotiation ends” instantly changes the dynamics of the negotiation, raises a conflict of interest, and I think creates a weakness which an honest and skilled negotiator will turn to their advantage in getting a lower settlement by “leading on” the opposing side.

Now if the negotiators are a little less than straight arrow, perhaps even a FORMAL business proposal which excludes some parties (ptsc) will be discussed.(OMG, that’s what they did, see point 3!)

Now, I’m here to tell you that conversation does not occur in an honest arms length transaction and when it does occur it drives the settlement price down either because it becomes a bargaining chip or because it becomes a “package price deal”.

IMHO, the BOD is negligent if this disclosure is not looked into by outside professionals.

All my T&O’s