It is not MMX I am saying caused this.What I am saying is that...

It is not MMX I am saying caused this.

What I am saying is that the boards and promoters of both CHM and MMX were the made up of the MMX co-defendents

As directors or acting as a director it is alleged in SOC they used their position in CHM to gain an advantage for both themselves and Nicu by using CHM cash and issuing shares to parties including Nicu itself to sell and raise cash to acquire asset.

Not huge sums but Nicu did not pay huge sums for assets.

The law I understand has available to it certain rights and remedies for the agreived party and certain penalties for the parties who have committed act.

The co-defendents are also answering to ASIC in relation to mysterious CHM $3 million.

These co-defendents it appears pushed CHM into liquidation hoping that it covered their tracks. I do not think they would have been that excited to see it re-surrected.

Again I am not saying Nicu but from the group from which both CHM and MMX was sporned.

From some of the post's view on CHM a little like good twin and bad twin.

MMX has a new board and they it appears have also also lodged claims now against these former directors.