i assume that the question for the judge is not whether the deal...

i assume that the question for the judge is not whether the deal means chm can afford to pay the litigation funder some amount aleady owed but whether the deal itself actually contractually triggered a right for the litigation funder to appoint a receiver. if that is so, it is immaterial whether chm could pay the litigation funder some money or not because chm's assets, including the case with mmx belong 100% to the funder... it has never been a case of whether chm would win or loose against mmx (that was always worth a punt) but instead what have the directors done behind the scenes that has not been disclosed to the market.