Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Free
Message: BUNK that PTSC settled with TPL for $1.1M, etc. GET A CLUE! Fail by BOD ..AGAIN
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message
I've written about this in the past, but the fact of the matter is, while the PTSC V TPL settlement from 2011 had TPL paying PTSC $1.1M from future licensing proceeds, the REALITY is that money NEVER made it to PTSC. In fact, money went, and will CONTINUE TO GO, the OPPOSITE direction. What those who post that bogus argument FAIL TO REVEAL is that while the agreement did call for that, it ALSO called for PDS to pay TPL/Alliacence ADDITIONAL MONEY that it was not entitled too per the original agreements.
.
The $1.1M is nothing more than a FACE SAVING measure for our BOD to say they extracted something from TPL, while in REALITY, TPL took PTSC to the wood shed on the settlement and new agreement that came out. Not only did TPL get another $946K out of PDS (half of which comes from PTSC's pocket), but they ALSO extracted another 5% off the top of any MMP license that is consumated as was revealed in the last 10q. The original CommAg that PTSC negotiated with TPL, called for them to get 15%, and the current one calls for Alliacense to get 20%.
.
Guess what, all PTSC/TPL did was "round-trip" that $1.1.M that they "CLAIM" that TPL was to pay PTSC as part of the settlement, as it was all tied to future licensing, rather than from TPL's pocket at the time of the settlement. And once the $1.1M amount was covered, the additional money continues to flow from PTSC through PDS into TPL's pocket until the licensing stops. So in reality, if they didn't license enough to cover the $1.1M, then PTSC would be SOL. While, thankfully they did, once they acheived that amount, TPL/Alliacense is NOW getting 5% MORE than they were before!
.
It's a similar method to what they used in settling in San Deigo courts, the OTHER defaulted loan from TPL where TPL covers the loan costs by PDS agreeing to pay TPL "special allocations" for work that TPL was already supposed to be doing, or that they're actually doing that covers other patents besides the MMP.
.
All one need to do is PAY ATTENTION to PTSC's ACTUAL COMMUNICATIONS, court documents, and court testimony, instead of the attempts to divert attention from this BOD malfeasacne that come from many posters here on this board.
.
From SEC Filings:
  • On October 6, 2011, we settled our dispute with TPL regarding the management of the MMP Portfolio. Pursuant to the terms of the executed settlement agreement, TPL has agreed to have PDS take the following actions: 1) allocate to PTSC $1,100,000 at the rate of five and ten percent of future distributions due to TPL as a member of PDS, 2) TPL has agreed to increased review and procedures by PDS and us on all MMP Portfolio licensing, 3) we have agreed to have PDS pay TPL for certain litigation and reexamination support services at the rate of $172,000 for June 2011, and $86,000 per month thereafter until 60 days after the Markman hearing in the current patent infringement litigation, 4) the parties have agreed to established guidelines and procedures relating to proposed license arrangements to be entered into by TPL involving the MMP Portfolio patents and one or more other patents within TPL’s portfolio that is not an MMP Portfolio patent, and 5) a procedure for allocating revenue between the MMP Portfolio patents and the non-MMP Portfolio patents, if needed.
  • On April 22, 2010, we filed an action against TPL in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. We and TPL had been in negotiations to restructure our relationship. On October 6, 2011, we announced that we had settled this action. Pursuant to this executed settlement agreement with TPL, PDS agreed to pay TPL $172,000 for June 2011, and $86,000 per month thereafter until 60 days after the Markman hearing relating to TPL’s special work and effort regarding internal costs related to litigation support. Accordingly, PDS has recognized $946,000 through May 31, 2012 pursuant to the executed settlement agreement and this expense is recorded in the accompanying statements of operations presented below.
  • On July 17, 2012, we entered into an Agreement with PDS, TPL, and Alliacense whereby we agreed to certain additional allocations of obligations relating to the Program Agreement.
  • In February 2013, PDS received a license fee installment attributable to the January 2013 satisfaction of a contingency contained in an MMP license agreement entered into in May 2012. Alliacense has asserted a claim against PDS for $300,000 under the premise that it is owed a percentage of the license fee installment pursuant to the Program Agreement it entered into with PDS, TPL and us in July 2012. TPL has also asserted a claim against PDS for $225,000 under the premise that it is owed a percentage of the license fee installment pursuant to the terms of the June 2005 Commercialization Agreement between PDS
20 Recommendations
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message
Share
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply