from the mmx announcment, page-6

"MMX notes project operated at a loss? does that mean that i can take money from you and use it to buy a long term bond that pays on maturity and and then claim sorry no profit yet so you can just have some interest on the money i took?"
Hawkduka, a long term bond is just a little different to a mining tenement - the main difference being certainty about what you get in the end. How would you have the judge determine the proportion of the "profit" from the project that CHM is supposedly due, other than to base it on the "profit" (or loss in this case) that has been derived to date?? Before answering consider the following:
- Jack Hills is still not certain to produce any profit;
- Murchison and its partners have done all the work in developing the project and obtaining funding, investors etc;
- CHM accordingly has no claim over the asset that is there today;
- CHM's legitimate claim is against Grimaldi and Barnes, NOT Murchison and its shareholders - this is consistent with the Fed Court's findings

The way I see it CHM has been out of pocket a few hundred $k's and therefore, if we're making comparisons, for the purposes of the case CHM should be treated no differently to a financier of a project i.e. they are due nothing more than interest (perhaps at penalty rates due to the manner in which the funds were obtained) - Financiers returns generally have no link to future income or profits from the projects that they provide financed to - their return in general terms is fixed based on the agreed interest rate. WHY? Because all they do is provide the funds and don't have anything more to do with the development of the project and all the work that goes with that.
Can you see the similarity to CHM's involvement in the Jack Hills project? I think the Federal Court did.