It is now clear that FH are not acting independently in my...

It is now clear that FH are not acting independently in my opinion.

Jones gives no opinion on the statement below and has not sought legal advice. This statement is the crux of a shareholder case. He has in my opinion left it deliberately obscure to conceal the possibility of a breach of the JV prior to the appointment of the VA.

"It is acknowledged that HAR has paid a total of $35.82M by way of Oxide JV expenditure, whereas CMR has paid only $16.94M, a difference of $18.88M. HAR claim this sum as a debt owing to it by CMR as a result of breach of contract. This claim is disputed by CMR."

This next quote is amazing given that there is a dispute over the JV agreement and now appears to be no immediate resolution

"Further, we note there remains the prospect of a return to shareholders, at some future time, if CMR can re-trade on the ASX after its Administration."

These next quotes are showing unreasonable bias towards directors

"Presently, it is my view that where would not be any merit in an insolvent trading action against the directors." How could this statement be made when clearly CMR did not commit the same level of funding as the JV partner thereby concealing the true debt?

"Based on preliminary investigations, I have not identified any breaches by the directors of their statutory or fiduciary duties." What about the duty to honour the terms of the JV?

"My preliminary investigations do not reveal any evidence of any false or misleading statements." What about the false information on the feasibility of the Oxide plant construction and operation and NPV projections?

"Proponent directors: · CMR’s directors are proposing this DOCA. Based on the above, it is my opinion that creditors should resolve that the company enter into the proposed DOCA." This is a big call given the past history.

Why isn't there a proposal as part of the DOCA for creditors to form a new Board to administer the DOCA rather than FH?

I am not giving up just yet?