"That's the real shame, and the "opportunity costs" to the pps of PTSC are not calculable , but I feel we'd be well higher than we are now, if not for Leckrone's shenanigans, and PTSC's shoddy stewardship that in part enabled it." ::::::::::::::: I agree wholeheartedly with the above. The point I want(ed) to make is that it is likely, from personal experience, that the 3.5% agreement between TPL and Brown included a non-disclosure clause. Breaching that condition by talking about the agreement in front of a thrid party such as PTSC could quite easily have lead to his termination by TPL for cause. This is a viable scenario to explain his silence. This is nothing to do with damages, the judge's decison etc - just a comment to those who felt Brown had some form of resposnsibility to talk to PTSC. My contention is that, personally, he sure had a reason to talk to TPL about how the PDS/PTSC arrangement would work with or against his 3.5% expectations. Of course, all bets are off if Carlton Johnson and his puppets colluded with Leckrone to decrease PTSC's income proportion in the secretly revised ComAg.