I haven't read the Master Agreement in this context in quite some time, and I've only skimmed LL's posts of today on this subject. However, just by recollection of the MA, I think that LL is generally correct in what he has said and has done a good job of explaining the situation.
In summary, all three persons/entities (PTSC, TPL, and Moore) are parties to the MA, but the two ComAgs, one between PTSC and TPL and the other between TPL and Moore, are separate in nature and substance, having been negotiated at different times. Thus, while all parties have certain joint/reciprocal responsibilities under the MA, the basic scenario is that TPL must use its best efforts in good faith to negotiate MMP licenses, and the money is then split according to each ComAg.
Assuming my recollection is accurate, I know of nothing that would prevent separate re-negotiation of each ComAg as long as such is not done with the obvious intent or effect of harming the remaining party to the MA. In other words, and merely as one example, PTSC and TPL could re-negotiate their ComAg unless they attempted to agree that no funds would thereafter be paid to Moore. Or, stated another way, either ComAg can be re-negotiated unless doing so would render the other ComAg unenforceable --- Moore should not care how PTSC and TPL split their share of the funds, unless, in doing so, Moore cannot be paid what he is due under his ComAg with TPL. And, of course, the "vice versa" scenario would also be true.
I welcome correction in this regard. If anyone believes that some portion of the MA is contrary to the above, cite me to the provision(s) and I'll take a look.
Best wishes to all. Now out until this evening.
