I believe the answer goes back to the new ComAg signed in July 2012, and TPL's subsequent BK filing just 9 strategic months later.

I have written previously that successful BKs, be they Chap 7 or 11, are all about advance planning. I had also written that Alliasence, unlike TPL, was intentionally kept free of Partners, investors and debts of DL or TPL.

This new Com Ag clause not allowing PDS to even fire Alliasence for cause, was imo, part of TPL's BK Planning. This way, DL is now able to guarantee himself an undisturbed 20% of all MMP licensing; regardless of whatever "iteration" the PDS board makeup is composed of ... be it a new partner or a court appointed BK Trustee acting on behalf of TPL's creditors of TPL's 50% JV interest. So, if/when the Court Order is that creditors get their debts paid directly from PDS distributions, DL will still have his uneffected Alliasence payout that the Court cannot (hopefully) invade, or who's contract cannot be broken.

I have asked the question before .. how much, if any, cooperation and advance knowledge did PTSC have about TPL's plans to file BK, and did PTSC assist TPL through the timing and terms of the new ComAg inorder to make it more difficult for TPL's creditors to collect against TPL in BK Court ? Afterall, in Gloria Felcyn's opinion/observations as a CPA, and as written in her own sworn Declaration, she indicated that after looking at TPL's finances, that TPL was "clearly Insolvant" as far back as 2010.