What else could that statement possibly mean?
It basically cites the conditions contained in that clause.
If TPL has a future funding-to-PDS shortfall, would you expect PTSC to again loan money to TPL, or exercise the clause?
And, IMO, the second paragraph you cite throws fuel on this fire. A possible increased "exposure to loss" equals a greater capital infusion, potentially meaning a greater percentage ownership.
While that statement was, as you note, also contained in the previous 10Q, that doesn't change anything as far as my opinion regarding PTSC's intent:
- No more loans to TPL (a no-brainer)
- If TPL experiences a future funding-to-PDS shortfall, PTSC may provide funding which will result in greater percentage ownership
- A greater percentage ownership equates to greater control
- A greater percentage ownership equates to a greater percentage of licensing proceeds
Where is the flaw in my thought process?
The only issue is TPL's future ability to contribute funding to PDS, when required.
As far as TPL income via PDS (as LL has observed), it would appear that those funds are going in TPL's front door and then immediately out the back door to pay legit operating expenses (unless you believe that PTSC and the Court aren't watching closely to assure same, not to mention Moore and another Court).
So, IMO, the big question is Lecky/TPL's financial condition, coupled with the probability of PDS needing future funding beyond licensing revenues that may come.
Open to correction!
Thank you for finding the statement in the previous 10Q.
SGE
(Prepare for another post containing delusional thoughts)
