grimaldi not testifing, page-54

cransy a constructive trust is a remedy not a type of case so this 98% failure rate is a number pulled from someones
---- as there is no such thing as constructive trust cases.

This case is about testing the law on directors deriving a benefit for themselves and others (MMX) from their position of trust as directors of CHM.

CHM have asked that either the judge as a form of compensation have the crossland shares placed in a constructive trust and/or the defendents account for their profits.

The Grimaldi tax matter and the share issue is part of tracing the profits from the dodgy dealings and is extremely relevent.

500k is just the cash component that came straight out of CHM coffers and you need to add the gains from the share issues and the leases that MMX grabbed and onsold to CHM

The numbers a bit bigger than the 500k.

Also in the 11 million you quote a chunk of that was script issued by MMX. Part of the arguement will be that the script issued should have been from a JV vehilce at least as MMX had no money to put up.

I would also like to know if Paul K although not a director when the acquisition was made became a director before it was complete because if that is the case unlike in the Koh matter this time around he would have been aware of such things as the non disclosure as discussed in the Australian today.