On the question of Tara TV If you read the original prospectus...

On the question of Tara TV If you read the original prospectus then my interpretation makes it clear that both Tara TV and the Talico entity are not part of what TV2U shareholders directly share in. They appear to be privately owned by either Singapore entities or Nick Fitgerald controlled trusts and Singapore is a good choice for both low tax reasons and secure IP registration.

My understanding is that Tara TV basically holds content and draws royalty or fees from any TV2U contract that involves a content component. Talico is the holder of IP but what IP has actually been approved by IP bodies is uncertain as again its outside what TV2U shareholders share in for its not part of the TV2U entity our shares are in. Theoretically Nick could wave or vary fees at his discretion if he was the trustee.

It makes sense that quarterly reports show no income from these sources as they are not part of TV2U which was a question by a HC person some days ago. My understanding is that TV2U only possesses a non-exclusive licence to use the IP and technology and so would pay some form of royalties to Nick when deals are done using his IP and Tara content.

Only once we have a large commercial deal operative and you then look at the quarterly reports will we know more about this arrangement and what fees are going to these entities from TV2U activity. If Divan is a content play for TV2U then I will be interested if that plays out through Tara TV as a content provider to the operator, or if TV2U negotiates with Vubiquity directly on the content deal.

Speaking of Vubiquity they just released a B2B Storefront offering announcement in partnership with ICX Media.
The link is http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/07/prweb13564794.htm

It appears to not unlike a deal that TV2U was trying to get going with Vubiquity. Read it and DYOR.

It repositions Vubiquity in the market as a more sophisticated content middleman with a B2B turnkey product. IMO.