"No. The statement is not misleading. TPL did in fact get around that much "

Yes, it is misleading. By prefacing a statement about the future (progress of the court case) with this statement, you are suggesting that TPL will likely get the same % in the future. Otherwise, what does the fact that TPL got 95% of last quarters revenues got to do with anything. And by making that suggestion, you are misleading as historically TPL gets nowhere near that %. Last quarter the numbers were skewed because of the litigation costs of the T3 case. If PDS received $30 million in MMP revenue, would TPL still have received 95%? Misleading. I know it. You know it. The readers know it. Just because it is factual information doesn't mean it is not misleading in the context in which you were using it.

As for whether TPL paid the money upfront or waited to get the money before paying 3rd party expenses - moot point. The real point is that TPL did not receive the full benefit of "95% of the revenue" as they had to pay out more than half of what they got.

So what if TPL is the lead in the litigation. Are you saying that if PTSC insisted that unless the delays were for strategic purposes for the litigation, that the delays stop, the lawyers could ignore them if they wanted to. In light of the fact that PTSC is listed as a litigant?? Is that what you are saying?

As for your other comments regarding "the past", implying we can't expect people to behave professionally and skillfully "because of the past", I say hogwash. Not saying I agree with your assessment of the ComAg, what you seem to be saying is that if a lawyer loses a case he can never be expected to win another.

Don't even bother to respond with your hollow arguments. The readers can decide who is right. Why clutter the board. Now that tax season is over I'll be around more often to point out when I think something you say is misleading.

Which brings up the next point - please tell us in detail what decisions Roger Neilson was involved in as part of the PDS management committee that affected PTSC. As I see it, the Comag pretty much defined the operating rules and there was little decision making left from there. Where do you see the important decisions coming from that Neilson was involved in?