can it be , page-12

Profess, I am no less conveniently lacking legal detail than your are conveniently taking a one sided point of view.

Read it again. I offered more than one point of view. I am trying to take an objective approach and looking at it from all angles, not just the one that suits me.

True, the intent is the key here, I accept that. However, if it was the true intent for CHM to enter into an agreement allowing them access to profit and assets procured from the use of the funds then why didnt CHM (the company) draw up an agreement to state exactly that. If the intent was there at the time the why not make it all above board and clear.

Only in hindsight is the intent there.

One of the directors did however recieve some shares in Winterfall for what was apparantly Nil consideration. That was a director NOT the company. That makes the intent appear to be for the personal benefit of a director who should of been acting on behalf of CHM and not himself.

Any eventuating or promised benefits should by rights land with CHM and not the director by my reckoning.

For this reason I have no doubt that there is a case against the directors if nothing else. They clearly didnt have the companies interest at heart and took various actions detrimental to the company. That in my mind is clear. A precedent should be set.

I do not have all the facts and dont pretend to. From what I can tell the only material contracts and agreements regarding the Jack Hills and Weld Range tenements are between the vendors and NiCu (Murchison). Unless evidence shows up (emails, taped convo's, letters, witness statements etc) to state otherwise then it will IMO be very hard to prove a case for CHM. I think it is pretty obvious that it will be near impossible to dispute anything in writing. Im sure even you know that. Verbal could just be "he said she said".

In either case it will in my mind be very easy to prove negligence on behalf of the directors.

Now, aside from all this, how would the decision affect the progress of the projects. Maybe a favourable decision for CHM will put the progress in jeopardy. Cazaly lost partly on the basis that Shovellana would be better off not in their hands.

There is no denying however Murchison would not have been able to complete their arrangements with the vendors without someones help, which happened to come in the form of CHM shares and cheques.

Who knows maybe CHM holders will end up with some Murchison shares.

Thats all for now.