eye over it you said:"it is one level of evidence to proove that...

eye over it you said:

"it is one level of evidence to proove that something is owed to chm by mmx but it is a whole other thing to assert that it is jack hills and weld range."

you have hit the nail on the head. BINGO

It is what lots of people have been saying is the fundamental defect in the chm case - once assets pass to another company - the giver of assets has no control over the use of those assets unless there is a specific agreement. And even if there was an agreement it would have to include chm as an equity holder in the asset. Where is the evidence of that; no where.

The assets could have been used to buy a car for example but that does not create an equitable interest in the car. The asset may have been used to pay various fees and charges but that does not give an equitable interest in the work done for those fees and charges.

The best chm can get if they can PROVE any wrong doing on the part of former mmx directors is their money back plus interest. If that has already been offerred as settlement and rejected by chm and the court agrees that such is the remedy them chm will pay all costs of all defendants.