"...TPL seems to be saying to PTSC that TPL CONTROLS the MMP ..." Hasn't that always been the understanding, more or less? And isn't there a dispute currently underway on that very subject? And doesn't it appear that PTSC will prevail on that dispute?

You talk of termination of the agreements per the terms of the agreements. How 'bout other ways in which the agreement could be terminated, e.g., material breach or proven allegations of fraud? I suspect there are many ways where the contracts could be nullified. And I've come to suspect there may be a lot of ammunition laying about.

And don't forget the thing I personally suspect Lecky fears most - exercise of that PDS funding clause (failure to fund) in the CA. The percentage ownership thing (I'm sure you recall). Less ownership. Less control (since per that clause, at some point there is a shift in PDS management from 1 PTSC/2 TPL to 2 PTSC/1 TPL). A lesser percentage of MMP revenues. IMO, that clause is going to come into play at some point. And, IMO, it should.

Also something to consider, assuming Lecky loses and goes belly up (though he may be bobbing around already): Alliacense. Specifically their staff (as IMO we already have access to data). They can stay with Lecky and work for no pay, or...... People will IMO migrate to where there is a reliable paycheck. On a more basic level, IMO people prefer to work for those with integrity (or to be more exact using a double negative, people prefer not to work for people who possess/demonstrate no integrity).

So while what you suggest may be possible, those are not the only possibilities. You acknowledge this in your post. Thought I'd reinforce it.

SGE