The 'point'(s) of it should be obvious.

A loan/advance to a TPL entity made subsequent to a lawsuit filed two months prior against the same entity for non-payment of a loan. Why make the same mistake twice (or a third time), unless the PDS management committee was still usurping its power in making sweetheart deals? What was the PDS management committee vote to approve such loan? And beyond that, why, if Alliacense is doing its job and "license revenue is continuing to flow" per your thinking, did they have to reserve the entire amount as being uncollectible with a loan loss provision? Should not such "license revenues" be sufficient to provide funds for TPL/Alliacense to be able to pay back their GD loans/advances?