that as of yet PDS has not been a named Party in any related action, nor has TPL expressed that the obligation is one of PDS' and not his.

Personally, I believe that PTSC has no obligation from their side unless they had notice of Leckrone's earlier (than the 2005 PDS creation) contract with Brown. When PTSC and TPL granted their MMP rights to the JV, and the JV then exclusively contracted to TPL to License on their behalf, that Brown obligation of TPL's should have been a disclosure to PTSC if it was to come "off the top". Was it ? I doubt it, and I think the JV document disclosures would have had to identify any preexisting percentage based (Equity rights like) "carve outs" from the Gross license receipts that TPL secured if PTSC was to share in it's obligation.

The said, if PTSC (or their half of PDS) does subsequently get looked to for any of that 3.5% Brown contribution, past, present or future, I think lawsuits targeting lawyers, negotiators, and even then BOD members for PTSC would likely follow.

FWIW, that's what I think about page 9 line 15