Again though, to me the potential to pad the expense side pales in comparison to the risk of the mis-allocation or reduction of the revenues truly attributable to the MMP portfolio.
In other words, and these are completely hypothetical numbers, if PDS were presented with a particular licensing fee/expense invoice of say $300,000 and our guy was expecting it to be $200,000 he might (hopefully) take a longer look at it and ask a few questions etc..... but in the end the most we could be out is perhaps $100,000.
However, if a MMP license sale should legitimately be, say $6,000,000; but it was presented to the PDS committee as being $2,500,000; we could potentially lose out on our half of the $3.5 million difference. How much time/effort/expertise is our guy then applying to discerning whether we are getting shortchanged, or whether the infringer is paying a package price for two portfolios and TPL/Alliacense are allocating the package price to both portfolios at their sole discretion, at their sole liking.
It is what we are not seeing in this regard (i.e. proper revenue) that would cause me the most concern, and it is also why it is so hard to fathom how we could have agreed to the original lop-sided set-up in the agreement in the first place, and apparently expect that all would end well. Nuts!
