Emu — I’ll give you credit for persistence, but once again, you’re dressing up speculation as concern, and hoping no one notices the sleight of hand.
Let’s address the actual facts:
✅ CMD has successfully funded this arbitration for years without a litigation funder, covering major legal milestones like passing jurisdiction, preparing and lodging full submissions, and securing Emmanuel Quinn — not exactly a discount legal outfit.
✅ The latest quarterly simply said the company remains open to funding options — a smart move. It’s called optionality. Every responsible board keeps those doors open in a case of this scale.
Now let’s talk about dilution:
Yes, CMD raised capital earlier this year — and guess what? The top 20 carried the bulk of that raise. These aren’t day traders — they’re long-term holders who understand what’s at stake and are in this for the endgame.
As for your “50% dilution” scare line — that’s pure extrapolation with no context. You ignore:
The quality of shareholders who participated
The fact that CMD trades on tiny volumes, with a tight register
And that directors took shares in lieu of cash at 1.5c, not 0.5c. That’s confidence, not desperation.
Yes, there are costs ahead — this is a USD $275M+ ICC arbitration with a hearing set for The Hague in under a year. No one’s denying that. But so far CMD has managed the process strategically and transparently.
Your posts keep circling the same narrative:
Litigation = expensive = company must be in trouble.
But what you consistently leave out is that CMD:
✅ Is nearing the finish line
✅ Has already done the heavy lifting
✅ Has structured things to preserve shareholder value where possible
✅ Has gold tailwinds supercharging the potential claim value
You’re not highlighting new concerns — you’re just repackaging the same old fear with a new emoji.
So keep posting, Emu. We’ll keep bringing the facts.
And when you’re ready to grow another tentacle and repeat it all again next time, we’ll be here to clear the ink.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
