Virginiak, You gambled on CMQ on the false logic that:QUOTE:...

Virginiak, You gambled on CMQ on the false logic that:

QUOTE: “about 2 years ago, 18 months ago, 3 or 4 mining companies plus service company shares had huge short positions, now it is 3 or 5 times of the price higher. So for those shares in short, it will have to buy back, and when so call fund managers, institutions deciced to buy back retail traders has to be quick other wise it is a case of been buned. My money is buying when it is dirt cheap”. END OF QUOTE

The fact is CMQ had bounced from $5 to 5 cents notwithstanding the shorting and NO FUND MANAGERS or INSTITUTIONS are buying CMQ or likely to buy.

The fact is CMQ was not able to sell the product LONG BEFORE the dispute with the present bond holders. The court case revealed that the Inviro sale contract (which by the way was the ONLY SALE contract of any significance in the entire history of CMQ) was hatched by David Williams and presented to the previous bond holders MIZUHO and shareholders that it satisfied the then 2006 Mizuho sale covenant. It did not achieve the price indicated as CMQ was to give away free “samples” to Inviro to hide the real selling price.

The court case also revealed the reasons for the lack of sales – the product is overpriced and not the magic bullet David Williams like shareholders to believe.

The original IFCA deal is DEAD because the condition precedents were not satisfied. And NO – both parties do not have to announce the deal is dead because anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of contract should understand what condition precedents are. The announcement said IFCA has not put forward any new proposal means there is currently nothing on the table.