I have trouble reconciling the idea that there is some ongoing agreement that the value of the other portfolios in commingled license deals would be "reduced to an amount approaching zero".

I would further ask how does this comport with the PDS Management Committee resolution that:

"effective immediately, TPL must not market patent portfolios in which PDS does not have an interest with the MMP Patent Portfolio"

That resolution was clearly formulated to PROHIBIT the commingling of licensing for all of the obvious reasons, presumably. With that in mind, how can there be an agreement to assign values on commingled licenses, when they have strictly prohibited commingled licenses? lol

Obviously, it makes it fiduciarily derelict to have a company (PDS) that is set up for the SOLE reason of collecting and accounting for MMP REVENUE ONLY, now be accounting for revenue of other portfolios not associated with the MMP, even if that revenue amount is to approach zero? Or did TPL negotiate into the revised agreements with PTSC and PDS that they could now officially commingle licenses. I don't recall seeing that in the 8-K we were provided, but I can't say for certain. Obviously, it seems the practice of licensing a company to multiple portfolios contemporaneously has continued (Pentair is one example that comes to mind) but I would assume after all of the bloodshed, PTSC would have secured completely SEPARATE licensing, associated costs, and revenue requirements as part of that agreement, and would be overseeing that like a HAWK now considering the past offenses.

Am I missing something? Other than perhaps the obvious that they may say one thing and do another?