day of reckoning, page-34

Glyna - There is no argument that cash and stock from Chameleon contributed to the purchase price of the tenemants that now make up Jack Hills. Without these funds MMX would not have Jack Hills. How that payment will be treated by the Court is the big question. Will it be treated as a loan to be repaid with interest? Will it be treated as part of the capital expended on the project my MMX and Mitsuibishi and thus an entitlement to a corresponding percentage? e.g. $300,00 in consideration vs $100m in capital expenditure on Jack Hills entitles CHM to 0.3%. Do you look at the CHM's contribution (cash and stock) relative to the total paid for the Jack Hills tenemant? This way you award the corresponding percentage less the capital expended by MMX and Mitsuibishi. e.g. CHM paid $250,000 out of $1m entitles them to 25% of a $1bn asset (less $200m in capex) = 25% of $800m = $200m. Its complicated and I'm sure there are other arguments but in my opinion the treatment of the payment is the question, not if the payment was made as a result of a fuduciary breach. Either way, its going to be interesting. Judgement soon..I hope. All figures are for illustrative purposes.