EyeknowSorry about spelling and grammar in previous post as I...

Eyeknow

Sorry about spelling and grammar in previous post as I was heading out the door in a hurry and then I hit the wrong button when I came back in so its there twice.

Just raced off to do the usual kids sports run around and was thinking about your post.

With your implied knowledge of this I am guessing you must know the co-defendents so this forum has a chance to really get some good oil on this.

Questions

In relation to Kho/Evans claim which I will call the second claim is the Company and co-defendents saying that none of the eventual investors (the 60% - 70% not related to SOC) who tipped money in were introduced by Koh and/or Evans ?

Are you saying that this whole case (the first claim) is based on Braysich feeling angry about a loss in another company and creating a bunch of lies and then convincing company and law firm to take case on?

Why did Nicu (now MMX) end up with a bunch of shares in CHM to sell to pay for assets ?

Was there any "out" clause in the MMX/Mitsu deal if this claim was proved to have foundation ?

I think your friends Grimaldi and Barnes will have their day in court but I am not sure if they really want it. I am sure Barnes is really looking forward to facing the ASIC charges relating to the missing $3 million in CHM.

As I keep saying CHM task is to ensure they have ability to continue to fight. I am sure they knew the magnitude of what they were taking on and would be addressing this.

If they achieve the required financial backing then MMX has painted itself into a corner with your friends Grimaldi, Barnes and lets not forget Roberts.

Anyway any answers on the above would be appreciated.

Also is there any access to MMX defence lodged to date as it could make for interesting reading.

What is the exact nature of the claim they have now launched against their co-defendents as it is stated by CHM that it relates to same transactions that are referred to in SOC but MMX have been very quiet on matter.