That PTSC owns 50% of the MMP intellectual property is, I hope, not in doubt.
The other 50% eventually was owned by TPL although I would love to hear what arguments, or threats, were used behind closed doors to get to that point.
However, as evidenced by Exhibit F to the Plan of Operation issued around mid-January 2015, Mr. Leckrone set up another company run by his daughter and moved the IP asset of MMP into it. He set up other companies for other components of his IP assets. This is the same Exhibit F wherein TPL lists several egregious acts of using TPL assets and funds for non-TPL business, or stripping key assets out of TPL and into multiple small companies run by friends and family, then demanding absolution - which was apparently granted insofaras creditor participants in the BK gave up rights to prosecute. I believe this is why the "alter ego" tactic was attempted.
This is also why TPL should have been forced into Chapter 7 - it would have eliminated the effect of Exhibit F. I am bemused how TPL has got away with this. Much of the bankruptcy discussion centered on whether TPL could generate enough income to repay debts. It was announced well before August 28th that PDS had disconnected from Alliacense, but why would Leckrone hold back on the delivery of the "potential infringer list" and the "technical support aka reverse engineering documentation" associated with it? One reason may be "because I can" and he'll just take his 1/2 of whatever PDS nets. Another could be that he was always planning to go out and cut deals on his own, outside of PDS (although I'm not clear on whether that would be legal if any agreements to the conrtary survived the BK) Ron - is this a fair summary?
Seems to me that justice is blind, but not in a good (unbiased) way. It also appears to be deaf to those who try to point out injustices and pretty "dumb" in its decision making. Henceforth I shall name it Tommy.