You seem to ignore that clause in the CA.

Yup, TPL needed the money, and likely for the reasons stated. If they could not come up with money to make their required contribution to PDS, what would/could happen?

And at the moment in time when those loans were made, what was happening on the '336 recert? IMO, most everyone thought it would conclude very quickly - even the licensing litigants and the court was adequately convinced, staying the proceedings precisely because a PTO was expected.

Now put the two together.

Would TPL want to risk missing out on 20% ($2M in loans=20% more ownership of PDS/MMP) of proceeds from the MMP with a recert expected, including the possibility/probability of settlement with licensing litigants?

From PTSC's perspective, if they made the loan(s) (as they ultimately did), they were either going to get their money back from TPL via MMP revenues resulting from the expected recert or, without a recert, they would be set up for the scenario we now witness. Flaw in the strategy? Time. Worth it? IMO, YES.

And I again remind people (not you LL) that are two disputes between PTSC and TPL in play. The one regarding the loan(s) in San Diego, and the bloody one regarding the agreements in Santa Clara. A good 400-500 miles apart physically, but very close in objective - but still separate.

Also, there have been occasions where people refer to the MA/CA toward surmising how things might ultimately shake out in the Santa Clara litigation and the potential impact on PTSC even if PTSC prevails. Those people should recognize that if PTSC prevails, those prior agreements with TPL will become void. The court will likely determine such things as ownership/rights to reverse engineering data and all the rest.

JMHOs,

SGE