But here they are anyway! LOL

Have another look at that paragraph:

Variable Interest Entity Disclosuresp.16

We have not provided financial support to PDS other than required capital contributions and we are not contractually obligated to provide financial support to PDS other than to fund the working capital account at the discretion of PDS’ management committee. In the event we, and not TPL, provide working capital funding to PDS we would consolidate PDS’ financials with our own as our ownership in PDS would be greater than 50%.

Delusion #1:

The reason for no further licensing (no Subsequent Events) is because TPL/Alliacense is dramatically increasing staff as agreed 1/19/11 (I believe). Training staff eats massive time/resources. Near term lack of licensing traded for very probable longer term significantly increased volume of licensing.

Delusion #2:

"....we are not contractually obligated to provide financial support to PDS other than to fund the working capital account at the discretion of PDS’ management committee."

I strongly suspect that PTSC's obligation is mirrored by TPL, i.e., TPL is not obligated to contribute finding unless so directed (decided) by the PDS Management Committee.

Currently, who is the PDS Management Committee? Who controls the PDS "bank"? I believe that would be CJ per Court mandate.

From the 2/3/11 PTSC PR:

"The resolution included an agreement to provide a substantial increase in working capital for the MMP licensing program and patent infringement litigation from MMP licensing proceeds."

Depending on the parameters/limitations on the level of growth in resources to support licensing activity per the resolution to increase resources, CJ could determine that even more funding to PDS (to go towards greater funding to Alliacense) is required, thus triggering an increased funding contribution requirement beyond what comes (but apparently hasn't yet come) from MMP licensing proceeds.

TPL shortfall, clause exercised....

While IMO it would be unlikely that CJ would do anything snidely in this regard (i.e., if the staffing increase parameters are not well defined - though they probably are), if the opportunity were present, CJ could potentially "cause" a TPL funding shortfall with a demand for more funds to support further growth.

Hey, I call these "delusions"! But I do suspect that #1 is correct (or certainly a contributing factor), and that #2 is pretty far out - not a real possibility. While CJ may have the leverage, I doubt such blatant action (ultimately impacting PDS percentage ownership) would be palatable to the Court.

FWIW,

SGE