Hi, folks. I attended the hearing in Judge Johnson's bankruptcy court on Thurs 2 Oct along with Chuck, Chet, Marcie and other GreenArrays stockholders (yep, those same people defamed by the joint plan where it says one of TPL's assets is suing us all for evil things of which we are innocent.) Here is an account of my personal take on the hearing, speaking only for myself as an individual; I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and it sure as Hell isn't investment advice :)

I liked Judge Johnson. He's alert, attentive and bright. He appears to have a sense of humor and a low tolerance for BS and an even lower tolerance for smoke and mirrors. He appears to be acutely aware of the short remaining life of these patents. He does not seem to be buffaloed by arrogance and bluster from the attorneys.

Unfortunately, Ken Prochnow could not get the amended disclosure, addressing most of the concerns expressed by third parties and including the MIG business plan (identifying Dave Sciarrino as the man to run it, addressing many feasibility concerns) as well as the full text of the letter from y'all, filed in time for Judge Johnson to have read it before the hearing. The Judge continued the Moore Plan for another hearing on 12 November but heard all the discussion of same and spent a good amount of time going through all the objections and giving Ken plenty of guidance on what he wanted to see by then. The judge also stated his intention to get the Joint Plan onto the same schedule; my understanding of his scheduling remarks is that the Joint plan will be heard on 14 October and will then join the Moore Plan for consideration at 10 AM PST on 12 Nov.

There was only peripheral discussion of the joint plan because it was not on the calendar.

With respect to the motion for appointment of trustee and removal of debtor-in-possession, essentially TPL argued that this was moot because Leckrone has given up control of TPL to independent management and Ken argued that Swamy was anything but independent. We learned before leaving the courtroom that it is Leckrone, not Swamy, who has been responsible for negotiating on the joint plan; and that Swamy does not have the authority to spend money without Leckrone's permission. I do not remember anyone explicitly identifying ANY particular authority Swamy actually has there, other than to suggest he is "in charge". Can Swamy sign an Agreement binding on TPL without permission from Leckrone? We were not told.

The problem is of course that "CEO" is not a statutory office for a Delaware LLC any more than is "President" or "Treasurer" or "Secretary." A Delaware LLC, by my own reading, as a mere businessman, of material published on the net by the State of Delaware, has only Members and it may also have Managers. The relationships and powers of these people depends entirely on the text of an operating agreement that need not be filed with any public office nor need it be available for inspection in any particular way. This starkly contrasts with the requirements in most places for C corporations like GreenArrays or PTSC for public filing and inspection of charters, bylaws, and officer/director lists. A Delaware LLC owned entirely by one man, as is the case according to publicly filed documents with TPL and Alliacense, is governed by an operating agreement between that man and himself, subject to change at his whim, and may or may not define officers and their duties, authority, powers and so forth but these too are subject to change by a vote (e.g. at the whim of) the single Member. Because there is no requirement I could find for filing this agreement that defines basically everything about how the LLC works, it makes one wonder how anyone can be certain he is looking at an enforceable definition of the LLCs structure and of the powers of someone such as Swamy. Even the question of "enforceability" seems ambiguous to me because the sole owner of the LLC would have to disagree with himself in order for there to be any question about its terms. Actually, my own reading of the Delaware rules suggests that there is no *requirement* that such an agreement even needs to exist *at all* if the LLC has only one member.

Along with this considerable ambiguity, everyone in the courtroom heard loud and clear that even if TPL actually had "independent management" that would not in any way allow said independent management to oversee or direct Alliacense's actions in licensing the MMP, because that remains firmly under Leckrone's absolute control (again as the sole owner and Member of Alliacense).

After Judge Johnson had heard everyone out on these points, Mr Hogg spoke up over the phone representing PTSC in support, pointing out that TPL had been delaying and obstructing the part of the joint plan calling for approving a second licensing entity besides Alliacense. and the question of conflict of interest, whose "resolution" the TPL and creditors committee attorneys made a big point of, was only the latest in a series of obstacles. Finally, having run a half hour over the scheduled 2 hours, Judge Johnson took the matter under submission indicating that he understood the arguments and had a great deal to think about.

In sum I believe it was a good hearing and am glad, personally, that I attended. I am pleased that a man like Judge Johnson is responsible for this bankruptcy proceeding and am hopeful that he will indeed see it to resolution in a timely manner, something that Chuck's plan appears to be helping by setting a "pace" if nothing else.

Again, all the observations I make above are my own personal interpretations of what I observed in the courtroom. Nothing in the above may be construed to defame, disparage, or in any way criticize the personal or business reputation, or past practices or conduct, of any person or entity. I apologize in advance for any inadvertent inaccuracies or misapprehensions in this account.