I'm saying that the agreement is part of SRA. Because SRA was bought by PEP that means the agreement between PDSG and SRA now becomes property of PEP. I give you a lease on a house for 5 years. I sell the house after one year and the lease transfers to the new owner for the remaining 4 years.

What I find exciting is the people who put up the funds for PEP to make the purchase of SRA. I think I underlined the companies such as communications and health. I think they are looking at the "assets" as things that they can use for their companies. They have a first chance IMO to use or purchase those assets. They have their foot in the door so to speak. PEP could sell of parts to bring value to the participants of the fund. PEP is now in charge of who gets to use the "assets" they have aquired. I think those that put up the money for the purchase are going to get first dibs. I also think that those who put up the funds know what is in the "asset" bag of SRA.

Think of it this way if you will. People are hungry and want to eat some beef. No one can really afford to buy a cow and sell off the parts. The parts by themselves are pricey. They get together find a leader and all give the leader their money to buy the cow. So together they can divide it into parts and get what they want and what suits their needs. Or they can get the milk and drink it or make cheese or butter or whatever. (Sorry about the analogy of the cow if you are or anyone here is a vegetarian.)

Purchasing a whole cow is actually cheaper than if you were to add up all the pricer parts together. The trick is to figure out which parts you want and what you will get in relationship to the others that put up the money.

Bottom line. Some people got together and bought SRA for the parts. How they use them is anyones guess. I believe some who put up the money are aware of PDSG and Crossflo and the value there in. To what extent is the agreement transferable or saleable is the next question.