That's NOT what it says. It actually says the opposite. If it meant what you say it meant, it would say
TPL must not market those other portfolios withOUT the MMP. Rather is says it must not market them WITH the MMP.
As I've posted before, the management committee is made up of 3 people, one TPL rep, on PTSC rep, and one Independent member. Those were originally, Lecky (TPL), Pohl(PTSC), Nielson (Independent). When Pohl left, CJ took his place.
When Nielson joined TPL fom Relational, as many here know, I objected directly to the company for the obvious reasons, and surprisingly was told that the company had no problem with it and that they were being well served by Neilson. Perhaps they were, but in reality, his being a TPL employee was in violation of the management committee provisions.
According to TPL, Nielson is no longer with them, so it appears that's likely either because he voted contrary to Leckrone and was dismissed, or perhaps he had already left and not being there allowed him to vote contrary to Leckrone.
As for WHY PTSC would want a resolution banning TPL from marketing other portfolios while marketing the MMP at the same time, that should be a no brainer for you. Keep in mind, PTSC gets half of the remaining proceeds for MMP licenses after expenses of licensing the MMP.
If Alliacence is marketing other portfolios in the same negotiations that MMP is being marketed, and NOT differentiating those costs, but charging PDS for all of it, then there is less "take home" money for PTSC, not to mention that's a violation of the agreement.
Secondly, that scenario opens the door to TPL discounting the MMP in order to cut deals for the other portfolios, and thus resulting in less money to PDS, and less "take home" money to PTSC. It also allows TPL to divert money that PTSC should have shared in, into its own pocket, and thus use those funds to pay the loans back, when in reality, they should be paying those funds back from ONLY the portions of money that TPL "legally" earns either from MMP or from its other business ventures.
In other words, to take your focus of the loan repayment, TPL would essentially be paying PTSC back with PTSC's money, rather than TPL's money. Great for TPL, bad for PTSC.
