It's my understanding that Robert Neilson, the original PDS "independent" (lol) manager, had a separate agreement with Leckrone from which he personally was entitled to a percentage of the revenue generated from each MMP license. It's also my understanding that others such as Chuck Moore (obviously) and Chet Brown were also entitled to similar proceeds / arrangements for the MMP revenues. Additionally, it's been testified by various parties that one party was not necessarily aware of the agreements of the other party, and vice versa.

Now, just suppose if Gloria and Carlton, or parties they serve, had some type of similar agreement with Leckrone, but for one or more of the other portfolios that TPL licenses? Would they be more or less incentived under this scenario to overlook commingling of licensing, or disproportionate weighting of the license fee allocations in the multi-portfolio licenses?

I'm not sure of the legalities of such arrangements, especially in the context of representing a public company, but I would hope it would be illegal at best, and at worst, something that must be disclosed to shareholders as a conflict of interest. Perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, considering the the clandestine nature with which PTSC and TPL keep most things related to the MMP licensing effort, and the way in which shareholders actually had to find out about the Apple deal, it raises the suspicions in my opinion. Furthermore, remember, it wasn't UNTIL, and ONLY until, shareholders discovered the Apple deal and related shenannigans that PTSC then sued TPL. Then, despite the obvious disaster that that deal represented, (and in my opinion it's logical to assume that similar multi-portfolio deals followed the same arrangement), and then how conveniently but really illogically PTSC settled the lawsuit out of court and out of sight from shareholders in a way that INCREASED TPL's leverage and position, in my opinion, the flames of suspcion grow much stronger. Continue the analysis to the current BK proceedings context, and it sure seems as though our BOD members are more intent on keeping the past hidden and the focus away from such issues.

Obviously, this is conjecture, built only on the circumstantial evidence provided, but almost all of that evidence had to be unwillingly extracted from the players involved, so I wouldn't expect there to be anyone shouting admissions of this from the rooftops if it were to prove true.

I'm not sure there is anything that has transpired that would categorically show such agreements as impossible or even unlikely. Certainly, I would hope the scenario to be false and simply incorrect possible conclusions on my part, but I certainly don't gain confidence by the past or current actions of our BOD and Management team that I should not consider such obviously improper private arrangements.

Do you or anyone else? Can anyone provide a substantial argument against this possibilty? If "it's illegal" is the only argument, I'm not sure that's a conclusive enough argument at this point considering all that has transpired, but I'm all ears.