No worries Peter111I was just looking back at one of Pumkins...

No worries Peter111

I was just looking back at one of Pumkins posts where he tried to point the finger at a couple of CHM shareholders as being the "mysterous funder".

I guess current action between CHM and the funder which is run by a guy called Paul lindstrom I believe blows that theory out the door.

If you want to do some of your own research what I found interesting was going back over Weboz/Nicu/Murchison (all same companies) ASX announcements and cashflow statements during 2004 and 2005.

They go from a suspended company with no cash to a company that had paid deposits on the IO assets and had cash with no trail or disclosure of where the funds came from.

I believe CHM have gone to court and explained how the deposits came about.

Our friend Glyna will say they could have come from share issues but all of these are supposed to be disclosed. So is MMX saying their reports were wrong because if that was the case the current directors have had a long time to correct.

Glyna will also point out the sums were not huge but these were the critical early deposits which without them MMX would not have secured IO assets.

As I said the ASX reports are one place anyone can go and do their own research about the period the case is about and there is a black hole IMO