biajj / Re: lamberts.. your post on PTSC, PDS and TPL Agreements
in response to
by
posted on
Jun 29, 2009 07:43PM
I don' t think it's accurate to say there was never any indication of what those payment were for, as in the 10-KSB for FY2005 it states the following:
"In June 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with the co-inventor of
certain of the Company's technology pursuant to which the Company and the
co-inventor resolved all legal disputes between them. As a result of the
agreement, the Company formed a new joint venture with the co-inventor into
which both parties contributed their rights to the technologies. Concurrently
therewith, the joint venture entered into a license agreement with a third party
pursuant to which it received $20,000,000. Both the Company and the venture
partner agreed to establish a working capital fund for the new venture of
$4,000,000, as well as to fund future working capital requirements. Net proceeds
received by the Company from the license agreement transaction were
approximately $6,700,000. In connection with this transaction, the Company paid
amounts aggregating $170,000 to certain of its board members in consideration of
their efforts in the consummation of this transaction."
Based on that, it sure seems as though the 2 lawyers on the B.O.D. were instrumental in the negotiation and review of the agreements with TPL, and in lieu of any other mention of legal fees associated with the "consumation of this transaction" in the SEC filings of that time period, it appears as though they may have been the sole negotiators and reviewers of the agreement on behalf of us the shareholders of PTSC.
That sure seems odd that no outside counsel would have reviewed these agreements, espeically when it is THE AGREEMENT in the financial life of the company. When you consider the history of Leckrone's attempts to "take" the MMP and the subsequent revelations of Moore with respect to his dealings with Leckrone, it seems pretty irresponsible to have "poor-boyed" the legal review of this agreement.
Begins to make sense as to why it ain't exactly the 50/50 partnership it was pitched to us as, doesn't it.