Good Post vautex, much better than the drivel some other MMX...

Good Post vautex, much better than the drivel some other MMX supporters paste on the CHM threads.

Just like you I took an objective approach, consulted an independant lawyer then executed my investment strategy. Perhaps my supposedly one eyed stance stems from an attempt to balance the rubbish posted on these threads.

Intent is critical, on the otherhand if it was truely the intent to lend money then surely an agreement would be documented outlining repayment terms etc. So you see it works both ways. From my point of view I see that the intent was more likely investment than loan due to the reasons posted previously.

Having common directors also clouds this issue. Like you I dont have all the facts, what we do know is that both parties are extremely confident, of course they are to push their own agenda. Interesting times!

The caz debacle was decided out of courts, I believe the Minister for Resources had the ultimate discretion. Fortunately Judges must abide by the law, as such if MMX has unjustly profited from resources (Cash and shares) CHM provided, then action should be taken.

As I said before, I expect CHM to recieve a portion of the project consistent with their investment contribution. Whether thats cash / direct project ownership or MMX shares is up to the powers that be.