there are not enough facts on this thread and the actual claims...

there are not enough facts on this thread and the actual claims need to be read but it sounds like where person 'A' loans person 'B' some money and person 'B' refuses to pay it back but buys a lotto ticket with the money and wins that dosen't mean that the lottery win belongs to person 'A' does it? Person 'A' can sue person 'B' for the money they owe and that is all. read the mmx announcement. it clearly states chm has no claim against the Jack Hills tenements (the lotto win). it does not say that they don't have a claim against mmx (the loan). So chm wil get its loan back from mmx and mmx will sue the directors that failed to pay the loan back in the first place and then it is all over. i think the counter claim against the directors is only for $75,000 so that might be all that chm is going to end up out of this....split how many ways?.....