I voiced opposition to this proposition for one simple reason, as previously stated: I want Otteson's complete, full, entire attention dedicated to monetizing the MMP through litigation when necessary. I do not want to see Otteson dedicating/wasting his valuable time serving as mediator of business disputes between the partners he represents.

It's that simple.

There are numerous other issues that could easily also come into play, e.g., decisions whether to litigate (in court, via Agility) or negotiate (sans Agility) to achieve awards/settlements - money. Which route do you think Otteson/Agility would be more incline to pursue? And the clock ticks....

And, when Agility is engaged, we kiss (I strongly suspect) some 40% of gross proceeds goodbye, right off the top. I'd personally prefer we accept 40% less in settlement license fees NOW as opposed to PERHAPS accepting a similar bottom line amount at some much later date (literally years away) as a result of another protracted legal battle (perhaps many), which involves RISK.

There are IMO far better candidates out there from the standpoint of a BUSINESS orientation, which IMO is what we really need.

Separately, though along the same lines, my view from 10,000 feet:

In a broader sense, filling that third seat at PDS presents another distraction and is wrought with probable difficulties. Do you honestly believe that PTSC and TPL could ever agree on a selection? If they did, and the candidate were acceptable to Leckrone, wouldn't that candidate automatically become "suspect"?

It is unfortunate that this is the probable reality of the situation. I'd certainly prefer to see a truly independent party in that third seat having a solid business background. I just don't see it happening. I suspect the only way this could possibly come about may be via TPL's bankruptcy predicament.

But if thoughts run in that direction, I prefer to consider the benefits of PTSC gaining a majority, controlling interest in PDS (51%). If memory serves, I believe that all it would take is a $100K shortfall in TPL's funding (of PDS) obligation. Even if it cost PTSC $1M (covering a TPL shortfall for two quarters, if my memory is off ten-fold), it would be well worth it. Then the only question may be whether such a thing would be acceptable to TPL's creditors. One measely percent....would that significantly impact creditors' possibilities of getting what's due? Better put, would it be perceived as improving the probability of creditors getting what they are due? Further, would it significantly impact TPL's ability to make money legitimently? Moore's? And with a controlling interest, the difficulty of a selection of a third person on the PDS Management Committee (if still considered necessary) would probably evaporate - PTSC could make the selection.

JMHOs, FWIW

SGE