As the moderated post was directed at me in terms of saying I...

As the moderated post was directed at me in terms of saying I cannot help myself I guess I cannot.

I and a few others continue to ask the same questions on this forum and never seem to get an answer.

Same question

IF the SOC is proven correct ie Nicu got a benefit from CHM cash and shares that allowed it to acquire assets why is this claim without foundation ?

Co-defendents ran CHM and Nicu at same time and used one for benefit of other and then it appears try to bury CHM to cover tracks.

Directors of CHM have no choice but to pursue matter on behalf of shareholders.

Its issue is ability to fund case but money trail would be short and either the cash and shares can be proved to be for other purposes or else SOC is true andf therefore among remedies is the potential to have awarded part of asset.

Lets hoping this time we get a response to question not abuse hurled at CHM

Having said this I like others return to this code for discussion and reading so if we do not have opposing sides theres not much to read.

Anyway its good theatre and am certainly not betting the farm but reckon something untoward happened when all this was started so its not a bad punt.