Gral that is the arguments of someone who has done limited...

Gral that is the arguments of someone who has done limited research.

The current board of MMX may have a good reputation but they are grappling with the actions of the old board and now co-defendents in this case.

It is MMX shareholders who are most concerned about CHM abilities to ensure funding to complete the case. I guess this is because they are just hoping this will go away. CHM shareholders think that the board and backers of CHM are fighters and will ensure the case will be completed.

What you are saying is that because the supporting evidence has not been loaded upon HC that CHM havent as directed by court gone about presenting the case and are continuing this on as a try on.

Go and research how the CHM DOCA was constructed and you will see why the claim was not previously pursued. It was all too hard for the liquidator and he had no funds to pursue.

Also have a close read of more recent statements of MMX as IMO the tone and implications of statements has changed.

You also need to sharpen up your understanding of the effects of a DOCA on previous creditors once a DOCA is completed and the company returned to the control of directors.

Maybe you should stop as usual playing the man and not the ball which is something MMX chairman I believe did at the AGM in talking about case. Like in sport this approach has brought many a team undone.

Its also weird when you talk about lack of evidence. CHM refers to CHM cheques that ended up in IO vendors hands and CHM shares that ended up in Nicu hands to sell to raise cash. Surely you do not think that they have not followed the cash trail.

MMX has talked only about a unnamed party undertaking forensic study but has produced no further detail.

As suggested head back to MMX forum and why dont you start a thread of "explanations for why CHM cash got used". I have asked on that forum for someone to provide some rationale arguement but just got told off for asking the same question over over