That's the thing, it's not necessarily criminal.

If Alliacense cuts a deal with TPV Tech for example that says we'll sign you up for the MMP for "x" amount and if you sign within a week, we'll throw in CORE Flash for "y", and "x" includes most or all of the expenses associated with accomplishing both deals, and there is nothing that explicitly prevents this from happening, what laws have been violated.

It stands to reason if the licensing team of Alliacense is meeting with the licensing team of TPV, that they could easily discuss both licenses in the same meetings, and during the same trips, and the cost for the non-MMP license is only an incremental increase. TPL could easily and accurately argue, that the costs of the airfare and hotels fo the trip, the lunches, the hours spent, the paper used, etc, etc, are all needed to do the MMP deal regardless of whether an additional license was sold, so the costs are legitimate, just not fair to PTSC in that scenario.

The unfortunate thing, IMO, is that PTSC has expressed no concern over their lack of controls to prevent that situation. Similarly, they express no concern that they have allowed a three member committee, originally designed to have one TPL rep, one PTSC rep and an INDEPENDENT rep, now has a 2 to 1 make up in favor of TPL. Similarly, they express no concern over a myriad of other issues.

With that culture seemingly so endemic, is it any wonder that PTSC is now forced to retroactively seek remedy from the representatives of the Crossflo transaction? Or that they have had to retroactively pursue recovery of the MAJORITY of their liquid cash in the ARS debacle, or that they are now dealing with their other "investments" retroactively as they are? IMO, PTSC and in particular, this BOD, through acts of commission AND omission, INVITE this type of situation. I think history proves this out.