chm v mmx case deferred, page-24

Gardie ,Have you ever read the 2005 annual put out by Murchison. The purchase price of Jack hills was $11m made up of $1.5m ,80m shares and 40m options So if $0.5m was used from chm . Where does the 100% claim come into this ??? How can $0.5m translate into a claim for 100% of Jack Hills which cost $11m.. What happens to the original seller's stake in mmx(niccu) does he lose any shares he has left in mmx to CHM .Why should he? A 5% claim is all you could honestly hope for at the best .. But that's yet to be proven by chm that any thing is amiss . Facts is what we all want both chm and mmx shareholders not suppositions about 100% claims etc etc etc If you have real FACTS please share them with us all as nobody wants to see any shareholder go broke out of this mess..Until then as they say see you in court....(the above figures may contain errors but only due the age of my memory.)