Hi GardieI don't know what Nasty said because I've got him...

Hi Gardie

I don't know what Nasty said because I've got him blocked he has his opinion as I have mine but I don't see him adding to rational informed debate and have tired of his insulting bigoted flaming.

MMXers will have us believe that profit is only derived from sale of goods and as there hasn't been any there is no profit, a convenient view.

Here's what Wikipedia say on the topic.

Account of profits
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An account of profits (sometimes referred to as an accounting for profits or simply an accounting) is a type of equitable remedy most commonly used in cases of breach of fiduciary duty.[1] It is an action taken against a defendant to recover the profits taken as a result of the breach of duty, in order to prevent unjust enrichment.

In conducting an account of profits, the plaintiff is treated as if they were conducting the business of the defendant, and made those profits which were attributable to the defendant's wrongful actions. This can be rather complex in practice, because the defendant's accounting records must be examined (sometimes by a forensic accountant) to determine what portion of his gross profits were derived to the wrongful act in question.[2]

Historically an account was not an equitable remedy, but was an action at common law, and is therefore technically an instrument of law, though it arose at a time before the distinction between law and equity was marked.[3]

Co-owners in concurrent estates also have the right to an accounting of profits, in order to properly apportion income from the use or leasing of the property.

Case law has shown roughly two approaches to assessing the extent of an account of profits[4]:

1. To account not of the entire business but of the particular benefits which flowed to him in breach of his duty;
2. To account for the entire business and its profits, due allowance being made for the time, energy, skill and financial contribution of the fiduciary (the approach in Boardman v Phipps)


The judgment is simply one mans opinion, on appeal it will now go before another man who may not necessarily hold the same view.

I believe CHM should be granted a constructive trust but even if they don't get that MMX have lost two of the three points contested which doesn't exactly constitute a win deserving payment of costs, as it stands currently MMX will have to part with 24% of their unimproved gain (profit) plus interest etc.

These are just my thoughts but I don't think there exclusive the buy side of CHM is building steadily in expectation of good times ahead.