Well, the blurb you cite is from August of last year, while the changes in working capital funding and the increased oversight by PTSC into PDS is from last month, so I think it's quite possible that CJ's oversight of the PDS banking activities, at least in the implied sense that he "controls" the activities, may have been superceded by the new arrangements announced in the recent PR's last month. I do assume that PTSC's representatives have additional oversight capabilities still, than they've had in the past, but we've heard those empty promises before, so until there is additional proof or a pattern of supportive evidence, I'll take PR language with a grain of salt.

Nonetheless, there's nothing incongruous with what I point out and what you respond with. Just because CJ may now have oversight into PDS's banking activities, it doesn't mean that bogus or exagerated expenses won't be paid to TPL/Alliancense, or that past circumventing of the agreement isn't continuing. I sure hope it's much more difficult, or that TPL has altered their practices, but none of what has been so far stated publicly supports a non-skeptical view of the arrangements, IMO.

Regardless of the above, the original agreement prescribed a starting point of $4M and max of $8M in working capital for PDS as license revenues permitted. If we are to believe PR's, validity issues are almost nil now, and license activity should be picking up, not slowing down. Therefore, there should be more revenues moving forward, and if distributions to the partners were done on a quarterly basis, it seems there would be plenty of funding to replenish the working capital parameters and that keeping a balance of $8M in the PDS bank account at the end of each quarter should be sufficient "funding" to support the MMP licensing effort, afterall, that in theory would provide for up to $32M in funding if the $8M in capital was used up each quarter before replenishing.

Maybe I'm not being clear, but the question is, why is more than $8M in working capital needed, much less "subtantially" more? Especially, when the expenses come out of the license revenues before any distributions to the partners? If PTSC had trouble controlling the proper expenditure of an $8M limit, how is additional oversight by the same people supposed to now assure proper expenditure of a substantially larger pool of money?

IMO, this smacks of a compromise by Leckrone saying, sure you can have additional oversight in PDS, as long you leave more of you money in PDS, money that will fund my business enterprises. I'm sure I can come up with ways to substantiate why that spending is justified.

IMO, what doesn't fit is with USPTO issues all but resolved, and licensing fees supposedly increasing, and infringers back to the negotiating table due to the USPTO resolutions, why would now be the time that additional working capital would be required over and above the $8M already allowed. If we're to believe the other parts of the PR's they issue, the increased frequency and amount of license revenues should be plenty sufficient to cover any increased costs without having to keep more money in the PDS entity (and thus less in the PTSC bank account, where TPL can't get at it).