<what did or didn't PTSC know about co-ownership? Wouldn't you agree that they should have known whether or not Moore had assigned his rights to Fish.>

I wasn't aware that Moore ever assigned any rights to Fish. Where do you find that?

<Also, was there a disclosure failure in that the litigation (TPL/Moore) was never mentioned in the quarterly report that covered the period of time when the lawsuit began?>

What Moore/TPL litigation are you referring to? I am only aware of one filed Sept 27th 2010. I assume you believe the info should have been in the 10/12 Q under subsequent events.

The press release Moore issued said nothing about ownership of the MMP only the following:

<for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract>

It is interesting that TPL is being sued, but I don't believe this has any SEC requirement to notify PTSC shareholders, unless the issue was ownership of the MMP. It may well have an impact on the ownership of the other half of the MMP, but it in no way changes the unified ownership of the of the MMP by the JV. I believe all 3 parties to the master agreement pooled their rights to the MMP. The JV has 100% of the ownership of which PTSC has 50%. How the other 50% is divided might make a difference to Moore and TPL, but it would not change the CA and thus should make no difference to the JV or PTSC.

But I think in this case, as a courtesy, PTSC should have mentioned something in the Q if they knew enough details in a timely fashion, provided there was no prohibition by the court. PTSC has been in litigation with TPL since April, and we know there is a gag order in play. It might have prevented us saying anything about the Moore/TPL litigation.

FYI the USPTO does not read/examine any recordations. Obviously if it doesn't read or examine the docs they can't hold much legal weight. I did not check to see if the assignment to Swartz was terminated, and don't see where it matters.

All in IMHO

Opty