outside of our PDS partnership, or without the assistance of Alliasence providing prosecutorial/infringing patent research/workproduct. TPL being our other JV partner, likely doesn't want any revenues that would come from licenses until such time as they negotiate a favorable debt reduction or painlessly stable repayment schedule in BK court.
PTSC is hostage to Alliasence, because as we know, PDS as the Licensing agent of the MMP appears to not be able break the contract with Alliasence; not even for non performance or good cause. Alliasence, being a Leckrone family company, who it seems can terminate the contract even for "convenience", and who owns all the reverse engineering and infringment Work Product, may not want to advance enough support for a license negotiation, or even name an infringing target; regardless if PDS wanted one.
This extreme one sided contract, to a company formerly owned by our JV partner, under the conditions in which it was conducted and executed, is, imo, unconscionable, especially for a public company with only one singular wasting asset that generates 100% of our company's revenues. I believe that aside from the many other curious business decisions made by our BOD, this latest licensing agreement arrangement would not pass Fiduciary muster and would run afoul of the Business Judgement Rule; even from a BOD friendly liberal interpretation State like Delaware.
