chookiewookie,Quite happy to have comments on HC putting...

chookiewookie,

Quite happy to have comments on HC putting different views across and even disagreeing with the vibe of the show!

Unfortunately One rogue poster can do a lot of damage, particularly when the comments/questions/statements he makes are void by ASX, ASIC compliance issues.

It is interesting that fear should be spread about a third party aquiring the technology and yet David25 thinks we should see the nitty gritty of an Independent Experts Report to see how the Company's figures stack up.

Well I guess fulfilling David25's needs would ensure a 3rd party gets what it wants.

I will respond in fact to David25's burning desires

1. Unpatented technolgy that could be used by anyone if leaked it out.

Response: The technology has been developed and is wholly owned by MHM via its subsidiary. This is not in doubt! Directors of MHM are bound by Corporations Laws and as such are engaged to act in the best interests of the Company. This extends to the Directors of Alcoa and Sims. Knowingly engaging in competitive activity against MHM, using information technological information gained whilst being a Director of MHM would be in breach of the Corporations Law unless they had express written permission from MHM. Furthermore any approach to Alcoa and Simms by a competitor of MHM would be subject to internal due dilegence by both Alcoa and Simms. Culpability extends to both parties if they enter an agreement using unauthorised technologies.....I could go on - but this realy is simple. Can it happen Yes - Can MHM shareholders recover damages if it does YES - So why would anyone do it?

2. Lack of business plan or BFS its called if you are asking for finance which they are not. If you are commercially responsible, you should have a business plan.

Response: The Company has published the forecasts/conclusions/findings. Its independant and that is that. Its all they need to publish. How they get to that figure is of no concern unless they have not disclosed basic variables which may impede this figure.

3. Lack of disclosure of the test results as to the success and method, this is not asking for company secrets.
Just a name of a person who verified those results and certification.

If you look at the coles takeover assessment of a fair and reasonable offer by westfarmer, they list who did the report the company, grant samuels.

Sure this is different but reporting some deeper facts would have been impertative if you are to establish market credibility.

Response: Your joking aren't you! This is not a fair and reasonable report on the value of a Company. As to the testing methods and results contained within the report - I guess its not relevant if that information was used to form the basis of the conclusions. The conclusions still stand - An independant expert is exactly that - Someone who's credabiltiy gets shattered if they stuff it up.

4 Sweeping statements about profitability without itemised expenses.

Response: Once again those sweeping statements are derived from from the report.

In summary this line of questioning is simply perfunctory and can only do harm to those who do not fully understand the simplicity of the Laws which protect investors from misleading information.

David25's line of questioning and his statements imply that the Company has not provided enough information to justify the statements they have made publicly. In otherwords he is much brighter than the ASX, ASIC and the Directors of MHM. As such he has contacted the regulatory bodies, lodged a complaint and forced the Company to explain itself. NOT!

I suggest that anyone who has found David25's actions to have impacted their decision to invest in this Company take their complaint to HC. As HC Moderator stated on a removed post - "mods will always act in the interest of HC"

IMO