"Why are we suing TPL? To attempt to stop the mixing of TPL proprietary IP with the MMP and to get the money returned that was loaned out."

We're suing TPL on two fronts.

One is force them to honor a proper vote on two resolutions, the second of which [resolution (ii)] requires, per my interpretation (which is in dispute with Lamberts, as we await input from Ron/others), that TPL/Alliacense only pursue licensing that involves the MMP either solely or coupled with other patent portfolio(s) represented by TPL/Alliacense (in other words, TPL/Alliacense may not pursue/dedicate resources toward actions solely involving patent portfolios excluding the MMP, since TPL owes PTSC money secured by future MMP revenues, i.e., generating MMP revenues must be top priority). There is nothing in that dispute regarding ownership/rights or intermingling of IP, regardless of your interpretation.

The other has to do with the unsecured loan to TPL. One possible outcome is as you suggest, that TPL return that money immediately. Other possible outcomes are that the loan become secured or PTSC be made whole in some fashion, which may or may not involve cash. And I'll say again that this particular litigation is the result of a major blunder by the BoD - the loan should have been secured to begin with, and if it had this litigation would not exist. BoD apologist?

The "raised eyebrow" has nothing to do with what you suggest. It has to do with proper/appropriate dedication of limited resources. This because it would raise eyebrows if TPL/Alliacense dedicated those limited resources toward securing licenses for patent portfolios other than the MMP, again, because TPL owes PTSC money secured by MMP revenues to be generated by those very same resources.

Hope this helps.

SGE