I clearly said "press release" in order to distinguish it from the complaint. The point I was trying to make is that it is not clear from the press release alone that the litigation has to do with ownership. One would necessarily have to read the complaint to make that determination.

There is absolutely no disagreement as to what the complaint is about. It certainly wasn't my intent to try and convince anyone here that the litigation wasn't about owership of the MMP. Only that it wasn't in the public eye as such. You had to look beyond the pr.

I think it unlikely that anyone was mislead by my comments, but I'm glad you clarified that they only related to the "press release" and not the contents of the complaint.

Opty