I expect that in PTSC's filings, references to the "ComAg" refer simply to the one between PTSC & TPL. If that's terminated, it wouldn't necessarily terminate the Master Agreement, (or the CommAg between Moore & TPL), at least I don't think it would. What it would have done is allowed PTSC to re-write the CommAg with a new and better language to prevent some of TPL's "indiscretions" (to put it lightly!).
Or, if no NEW CommAg could be formed, it would have led to the disolvement of the M.A. as well through a second action, I suppose. Perhaps Ron or other legal eagles can confirm my read on that issue.
Ultimately, though, the CommAg between Moore & TPL is it's own issue that Moore & TPL have to resolve / settle. Just as Moore couldn't settle OUR dispute with TPL, we can't settle his.
I'm not arguing that we couldn't have been a force in pushing that to happen as part of the conditions for our deal, but "legally", I think intermingling the 2 could have been a problem for us. Additionally though, based on Moore's commentary, it appears as though we agreed to do it, so, if so, then it seems we either SHOULD have done it, OR never agreed to such.
As a side note, if WE had any obligation to Moore to help settle HIS dispute, then HE had AS MUCH if not MORE of an obligation to aid us in settling OURS, in my opinion. While he may have done exactly that, it's difficult to know from our shareholder perspective. If he did NOT to that, then in my opinion, his ramblings of inequity are empty expressions of dissatisfaction of his own business shortcomings, and not really our concern. While my intuition is to value Moore's support and pull for his cause, HE is the SOLE reason that TPL is in this equation to begin with, and he did is best to see PTSC OUT of the equation in the past, so it's time for him to put his big-boy-britches on and take responsiblity for his actions and resolve his differences in the interest of all.
And ultimately, perhaps there IS a way forward that does solve it.
FOR EXAMPLE, it could be that TPL as an entity, is feeling the financial pinch as indicated in the filings (though I VERY MUCH DOUBT that's true on a Leckrone personal level). With that in mind, Leckrone's priority would be to get the cash flow such that he gets enough money upfront, or off the top, to cover the expenses of his operations (even the non-MMP related ones). His leverage would be to tell PTSC, you agreed to have us have total licensing authority, and without money, we can't license, so we'll stop it unless you help us. To make a long story short, PTSC having agreed to stupid language to begin with, has to take the opportunity to correct what it can, get licensing flowing again, and perhaps, there's enough in the pipeline that, with a settlement with PTSC, TPL can now sign enough deals to pay Moore per HIS settlement offer AND get TPL's expenses covered, all PRIOR to Moore and TPL going to trial. Or at least a reasonable counter offer that Moore can accept.
Obviously, without knowing what is to come with respect to the actual settlement language, or potential licensing short term, it's hard to know if I'm anywhere close with that guess, but it may be something that is in the works and yet to be resolved, through a scenario similar to the above.
