I hope you're doing well. I see this a little differently, so wanted to bounce this off you and others who would consider it thoughtfully and could comment accordingly.

I would assume that the 7/24/14 amended agreement replaced the previous 2012 agreement that PDS and Alliancense made, rather than just act as an overlay on top of that original agreement. While I realize the amendment references language about the original agreement not being changed except as noted therein, I would assume that means that amended agreement is now all of the original stuff, PLUS the things that have changed, and that in its entirety (new/revised stuff PLUS old/unrevised stuff), the amended agreement superceded and replaced any previous agreement(s).

Thus, there was only the "amended" agreement remaining in place prior to yesterday's termination announcement.

By terminating that, it now leaves NO agreement in place, effectively eliminating Alliacense from the picture.

For example, if the original agreement was, A-B-C-D-E, and the amended agreement was to replace B with X, and D with W, and add L-M-N-O-P, I don't believe the resulting agreement binding the parties would be 2 separate agreements, one being X-W-L-M-N-O-P and the other remaining A-C-E working together. Rather, I think the agreement that was the result was all of that as one agreement, ie A-X-C-W-E-L-M-N-O-P.

Once you terminate that, there is no longer any agreement left. Otherwise, the question would be, if you've changed B for X and C for W, and added L-M-N-O-P, and you terminate only that portion, you would end up with A-C-E, not revert back to A-B-C-D-E, as it was agreed that B & D were already revised and no longer what they were previously. An agreement of A-C-E may not even make sense legally or practically, so I would have to think, Alliacense is gone based on the filing (at least from PDS' standpoint). In practical sense, I fully expect Alliacense to contest this as that's what Leckrone lives on, legal machinations, to manipulate situations to his benefit, or at the least to deny others what they're entititled to.

It's a shame that it's taken this long to get to this point, IMO. Perhaps too little too late, but perhaps not. We'll have to see. If Lecky doesn't fight this legally, IMO, that may be a reflection of the remaining value of the MMP. We'll see.