that, if the PR is taken on it's face as being accurately written, why was PTSC a party to the Settlement Agreement ??
1. Moore's suit was only against Leckrone, PTSC was not Party.
2. The Green Arrays business was between Leckrone (TPL entities) and Moore, not PTSC.
3. The Licensor for granting MMP Licensing to Moore's company is PDS, not PTSC.
Was it necessary for PTSC to be included because the revised Com AG concluded between TPL and PTSC, which resolved our suit with TPL, needed Moore to be a signatory as well ? Perhaps so, because otherwise then the Licenses we granted while under the new ComAg could technically have been challanged. I can also somewhat understand if PTSC was included due to an overabundance of caution in a comprehensive effort to make sure that all bases were covered. But all that said, I'm not yet convinced in my own thinking that this was the sole reason.
OR .. was PTSC's participation in the Settlement agreement for some reason entirely new and different ??
I find it curious, and welcome other's thoughts on the matter.
