You said (underline is mine)

While some believed that the percentage ownership clause of the ComAg was actionable, the loans to TPL caused uncertainty. With that statement in the 10Q (which I do not recall seeing before) that uncertainty is now gone. It strongly suggests that there will be no future loans to TPL (no surprise after past experience) and that their intent is to exercise the percentage ownership clause when possible. IMO, the prospects may be very positive.

How can you be so sure that their intent is to exercise the percentage ownershp clause.

From the 10Q filed 14-01-2011

Variable Interest Entity Disclosures p.16

We have not provided financial support to PDS other than required capital contributions and we are not contractually obligated to provide financial support to PDS other than to fund the working capital account at the discretion of PDS’ management committee. In the event we, and not TPL, provide working capital funding to PDS we would consolidate PDS’ financials with our own as our ownership in PDS would be greater than 50%.

Our variable interest in PDS consists of 50% of PDS’ Members Deficit or ($968,210) at November 30, 2010. We are unable to quantify our maximum exposure to loss associated with this VIE as we may incur future capital funding requirements