I agree with earlier comments that CJ may have indeed baited the snare with the 2nd loan, and Lecky is now hanging upside down wriggling from a tree limb. IMO, PTSC finally said, “Enough’s enough!”….I believe neither CJ nor the BOD came to this action hastily and may have even consulted Swartz before springing the trap. Give the BOD’s illustrious history, I have serious doubt whether the BOD possesses 1% of the imagination and cunning to execute such a move by themselves. I do not see this legal move as a back door attempt by Swartz to control PTSC per-se, but rather a renewed desire to protect their long term interests, that being, their residual unknown share counts and their influence via CJ, who may now be viewed as indispensable, as to the future of PTSC for the time-being at a minimum.
Regardless, of who deserves the ultimate credit for ensnaring Lecky, I applaud and appreciate the Result. Am sure Lecky was shocked at the BOD’s audacity and cojones. IMO, Lecky thought he was ultimately running the show, as evidenced by his grandstanding at PTSC SHM meetings, and now he may come to believe PTSC may go outside to license and team up with Moore, if the Judge tears up the MA and TPL loses their separate case with Moore. A long shot, granted for now, but certainly not 0%, as of today. PTSC has a very strong case.
I believe the Judge has reviewed the complaint and understands the seriousness of the charges and their daily financial impact to PTSC and desires a rapid explanation from TPL. To me, the denial of TPL’s motion to conduct the hearing in secret sotospeak is a signal to TPL (Lecky), stalling tactics will not be tolerated, and TPL better be prepared to answer the complaint in detail and not attempt to blow off PTSC and the Court. PTSC may very well ask the Court to review the MA to defend their accusations and argue for the MA to be tossed and/or revised. Given the charges, I could very well understand the Judge beginning to take a very active interest in the MA, an outcome, I believe, TPL (Lecky) dreads.
I would not be surprised if TPL (Lecky) throws PTSC a bone and offers to revise the 3-man PDS -2 TPL employees and 1 PTSC setup. IF PTSC & TPL continue to license together, I would expect at a minimum the 3-man PDS ratio would be reversed, along with the ability of PTSC to look at Alliancense books to ensure the “markup” from Alliancense to TPL is not excessive and funds are not comingled from any TPL separate licensing activity.
Additionally, TPL may grant PTSC an on-site representative at TPL & Alliancense with authority to review all legal and financial documents pertaining to the MMP and be made privy to the negotiating strategy employed by TPL and every contact and status with prospective licensees. The 50-50 split will be renegotiated for sure, if TPL can convince PTSC they will behave henceforth, and if our BOD ensures all safeguards are in place adequately.....Risky proposition IMO.
Virt
