I believe by agreeing to leave SUBSTANTIALLY more of the MMP revenues in the PDS entity where it remains subject to TPL's alleged malfeasance, as our BOD recently agreed, they are NOT protecting PTSC Shareholders interests to the full extent. Therefore, IMO, they are not doing all they could be doing.

I recall others (perhaps even you, I can't remember) posting in the past, that if TPL couldn't live up to its working capital injections into PDS, and PTSC did live up to its own, and perhaps disproportionately contributed, that the balance of MMP ownership and rights to licensing would also shift in PTSC's favor. Presumably, the revised agreement to leave the increased leveles of money with PDS, rather than distribute it to TPL and PTSC according to the original structure, is so that they don't get to a point where more working capital is needed, and one of the partners (I presume TPL would be considered the likely culprit based on the loans from PTSC, and the poverty claims we hear) can't meet the obligation, and thus the partnership runs afoul.

Based on what HAS transpired with TPL, and PTSC's need to take them to court to stop the alleged behavior, increasing the working capital fund that is used primarily to feed TPL's machine (or Leckrone's alleged private jet and alleged mistress accomodations) seems wrongheaded, IMO. It's akin to installing a keg on tap at the joint community club house, instead of leaving a six pack in the fridge there, knowing that one of your neighbors LOVES TO DRINK BEER!

Nobody here seems interested in commenting on this issue, or seems to have any concern over it, but can anyone explain why this move was needed, and how this is something that our BOD should have agreed to, knowing all that we do know?