You are assuming that it could not have been even more onerous as originally drawn up. You are also making the assumption that PTSC was at least on equal footing in negotiating with TPL/Moore. I think those assumptions might be flawed. But just my opinion.

In any case, it was my understanding the the BoD had been working for little or no money while the company struggled in those early years. I am under the impression that putting some finality to the litigation with Moore/TPL was seen a an opportunity to essentially reimburse them for their dedication to the company. Again, I could be wrong. It's just an impression obtained from things I've read.

I believe PTSC needed to pay some shareholders to get their approval of that document. Why was that necessary? Perhaps they knew it wasn't a good deal for PTSC, but the best deal that could be obtained? Again, just an impression.

You apparently feel that a better deal could have been cut by PTSC. You might be right. How much better and how much longer would that have taken? What if no deal struck? Who would be in the driver's seat?

I was not a party to it, so I do not know what more could have been obtained. It all depended on who needed the other party most. That's normally the way it works.

Moore was a party to that agreement. Which is why I asked Greg to shine some light on it if he can. If what I said is complete nonsense, it would have more meaning to me if he said it.

Opty