mmx signifcant transaction , page-11

i keep going back to the very careful words mmx use in all thier rebuttals - 'no claim in respect of Jack Hills and Weld Range' - mmx is not saying that there is no claim or that the former directors did not do the wrong thing. it is one level of evidence to proove that something is owed to chm by mmx but it is a whole other thing to assert that it is jack hills and weld range. imo i would say mmx is confident and that means chm holders are betting that the court makes a 'unusual' decision and while that is always possible with courts, it does lower the prospects of success to levels that should give reason for concern. the other problem for chm is how much of the potential win has been pledge away now to lawyers and financial backers that will never find its way back to chm holder in the unlikely event that chm does win. chm should be disclosing what has been given away in order to keep this going but they are silent on this issue. that has to be a worry to chm holders.