Ann: Quarterly Activities and Quarterly Cashflow , page-5

re: Ann: Quarterly Activities and Quarterly C... Interpretation is key.

MMX state no substantial claim.

So yes there is a viable claim by CHM but what is substantial? It is such an opened ended statement.

To a out of work dad with three kids - $1000 cash is substantial.

To high wealth individuals it could be that weeks tax - Not substantial.

So MMX would not be able to state what they think the cut off for substantial vs not substantial is as it would be like going to the toilet & leaving your cards face up foreveryone to see.

It will depend on what CHM are prepared to bet on it. They seem to have taken a reasonably low offer on the Koh & Evans case however Koh & Evans weren't keen to run it themselves so who knows wether they bluffed their way to a good deal or sold out cheap trying to start a precidence with MMX to settle this case.

So I for one am a little concerned at what MMX deem substantial.

No doubt MMX will make offers it's just a matter of what CHM except or if they chance their arm & go to the court decision.

Interesting point Baggins about the timing of the case vs the chinese visit. They knew the case was on before they booked the Chinese visit.

Either expect a settlement or the directors aren't going to the court room & will leave it to the lawyers.

Case is in Sydney so can't be at both.

Or more court delays expected.

Sorry Sir we can't attend court today the Chinese are coming over for some scones & a milkshake