Why do you automatically polarize to the extremes?
You say:
"Why do you assume there would be no segregation of expenses? Simple accounting, without which they would be committing fraud. You have zero basis for this assumption."
According to you it is FRAUD if FOR EXAMPLE, TPL/Alliancense booked flights, hotels, rental cars, etc. for a negotiating team, to meet the client for MMP negotiations. Then during those same negotiations, happen to discuss the CoreFlash or other portfolios, make a deal on all, some or only one of the other ones, and charge most or all of the expenses to PDS.
Is that really FRAUD? Afterall, the meetings were set up to negotiate MMP. The costs are legitimate for MMP, as in this example, they were set up for MMP negotiations. That they discussed other business "while in town" doesn't negate that. Even if they don't secure an MMP license, but instead secure a CoreFlash license, doesn't mean the expenses aren't "arguably" for MMP and thus due from PDS. Even if PDS were only charged for all of the expenses EXCEPT the time spent negotiating the other deals, are those expenses arguably not PDS related? Is that really fair to PDS? Does that not open the opportunity to Alliacense to set up MMP expense generating issues, in order to conduct other business and thus load the expenses to PDS?
What's the proper split of expenses? 90/10, 80/20, 50/50, 0/100 or 100/0 (if only one portfolio is licensed and not the other)? How would CoreFlash's "owners" be conspiring if they paid 10% of the costs because TPL told them that's the proportionate time spent and there are time cards and logs to prove it?
What if the deal for Core Flash was essentialy finalized through phone or e-mail negotiations, EXCEPT for the "closing" meeting with that CEO of that company, and ALLIACENSE's team booked meetings to negotiate an MMP deal, AND a slot with the CEO to dot the i's and cross the t's on the CoreFlash deal. What if they had no luck on the MMP front but sealed the deal on the CoreFlash deal, what's the proper split of expenses to PDS? Should PDS get charged at all for a failed trip?
These aren't black and white issues and your strong suspicions don't make for fact. For all you know in the other deals TPL may have agreed to a flat fee for licensing plus a split of the profit or a better or worse than 50/50 split, so in the flat fee instance it could be well in their interest to load the expenses and in fact set up the circumstances to justify charges to PDS, that indeed might apply to other portofolios for which their flat fee may have already been expended in terms of manhours.
Please solicit an opinion from FutTheWuk.
