I'm suggesting simply that ethically challenged lawyers (an oxymoron perhaps - sorry Ron , lol) could use that language to formulate a legal argument by which to claim the 3.5% of Gross Brown entitlement is a "TPL Direct Reimbursable Expenses not in conformity with the applicable Business Plan, to the extent approved by the P-Newco Management Committee".

Doesn't make it so, nor make it right, but as we've all heard and experienced ad nauseum with PTSC, anybody can sue anyone for anything, and if that claim were made, PTSC would have to either expend resources to fight it or to dispose of it.

While in explaining your view of PTSC's past actions, you often seem inclined to insist the equivalent of my dog is fertilzing my lawn when in fact he's doing what he shouldn't be doing, what do you think PTSC's BOD would do in that scenario taking into account their stellar history?