the new mis enrichment plan, page-13

tuart,

Surfie's analysis is not a joke, and you should be careful before you start being critical of one of the main (if not the most knowledgeable) contributors on this forum.

You see, you run the risk of sending your already non-existent credibility deep into negative territory.

The only jokes here are you and the several other clowns and stand up-comics who amuse and entertain us on this forum.

What I find particularly hilarious, is when people like yourself engage in legal argument, when they have not the faintest clue about the relevant law or process.

And the other joke which always sends me into fits of laughter, is when you guys use the argument that, "if the claim had no basis then a big law firm like AH would not risk their reputation by accepting this case"

Ask someone in the legal fraternity about them, and you'll hear nicknames like "Antagonistic & Heartless" and "The Firm". Law firms are in the business of making money, winning cases is usually the best way to achieve that objective, unless there's an easier way...

The CHM claim is a lawyer's dream, because they don't have to win the case to get paid. I've mentioned this once before: they can dump out when the hype about the case is at its highest, and this may be long before any decision is reached.

Tuart, you may think you're smarter than some people on this forum, but please answer this:

Last time I looked at the register, more than 60% of MMX is owned by giant steel makers and institutions. Why has not a single one pulled out of MMX because of this claim ?

Do you think big companies would invest hundreds of millions into MMX just on a promise by MMX that CHM has no case?

You ask Surfie to do his research, what research have you done so far ? You've read CHM's SOC, and now you think you know all there is to know about the case ?

A SOC is one party's version of what happened. It is nothing more than a piece of paper,(and no, it doesn't matter whose signature is on it) because every assertion/claim made in that document must be supported by evidence in court. And that evidence must hold up under the scrutiny of cross-examination.

When the dust settles, CHM shareholders will foot the bill for this little expedition, just as it happened last time.

You people seem to have forgotten some small details: CHM did not go under because they were allegedly defrauded in the Jack Hills deal.

Tell me why they went under tuart ? And then tell me why things are so different this time 'round...