It is also my understanding that at one point in time (one of PTSC's more recent CEOs) made a statement to the effect with regards to the settlement that "we have received all the money we were supposed to receive." Was he lying or was he telling the truth? In my opinion, he spoke the truth because we did receive all we were supposed to at that point in time. Perhaps there is more coming at a later point in time.

I'm 100% with your analysis from both an intuitive and legal perspective.

An MOU based on some future, as then undetermined event, and covered by an NDA would permit the "we have received all the money we were supposed to receive" statement without being in breach of SEC guidelines for the simple reason that the future event, when resolved, could mean there was nothing more to be received. Conversely, the qualifying event could get the parties back to the negotiating table to agree an acceptable license fee, and would go some way in explaining the "business resolution" given at the time, with Judge Ward retaining jurisdiction, in my very humble opinion.

.

.

.

Be well