I agree with the comments on the postings but another point I...

I agree with the comments on the postings but another point I find amazing is that if you take time to read the judgement the behaviour of Murchison in conjunction with Barnes, Grimaldi and others was pretty shocking.

If you look at the decision the judge said yes to two points.

On a third and fourth said yes MMX didnt pay for CHM shares issued by CHM but didnt agree that those funds could be traced to acquisition even though happening at the same time. So yes something bad happened but it cant be traced directly.

On a fifth MMX bought and immediately on sold assets to CHM and raised much needed cash and booked a 1.6 million profit but judge even though everyone but CHM seemed to get benefits ruled it didnt tie directly into acquisition.

I found that one hard to swallow.

Judge states that without CHM MMX would not have been able to undertake the transaction as they were deperate for cash.

On the back of this MMX supporters want to take the high moral ground and have thrown all sorts of ethnic and other barbs at CHM board.

Despite Glyna telling everyone that it was Barnes and Grimaldi it was also MMX up to its eyeballs in it.

My guess is that as a minimum CHM will look at what did other investors in Winterfall gain out of this.

If people had been acting with CHM interests they would have been made shareholders in Crossland and received a substantial stake in MMX through the takeover. Have a look at what the chairman got for his investment through Crossland (then known as Winterfall).

What would CHM not be put back in the same position at least as other shareholders of Crosslands ?