You are clearly correct.

Furthermore, as part of the commercialization agreement, there is a standard set of parameters by which TPL, PTSC and Moore have agreed that Alliacence can license the MMP. Provided the license fits into that set of "pre-approved" parameters, they are authorized to license without further prior approval. When license scenarios fall outside of those parameters, a majority of the PDS management committee must vote to approve.

Considering the Management Committee is 2 to 1 in TPL's favor, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that PTSC's voice is muted in this regard. To think that this has become a bone of contention just recently as some would suggest, and thus the filing, flies in the face of logic, especially when you consider the parties involved.

Obviously, the HTC filing put a focus on these issues in the public domain, and PTSC's BOD was forced to act, especially since shareholders have been questioning these issues for years. I think the lawsuit is more a matter of the BOD members covering themselves from legal ramifications against them, though I think with what's on record over the years, that would prove hard to do if it were pressed from the shareholders side.

Ultimately, it seems unlikely in the current evironment that we'll see much licensing over the next 2 months of this latest legal process, and if that's the case, then the "secured" loan that was based on the $2M receiveable, will have likely been spent in full and then some, leaving PTSC unable to collect even that money from TPL.

Hopefully there is some kind of quick settlement to this that will allow licensing to continue, but if I were an infringer, I'd feel pretty empowered right now in my negotiations. We'll see.