grimaldi not testifing, page-21

Yes Richard01...This indeed does set up a precedence for all these kind of cases...But if you look closely...when decisions of this kind are made the court takes into account the ammounts of money put into the houses/property/tenements etc by both the plaintiff and the defendents and IF it can be proved that the funds were in fact put to the purpose the plaintiff claims..AND THAT IS A HUGE IF!!! then any award is made in the proportions of the contributors..ie if a house was bought with 50k of mis aproprriated funds and 100k of the defendents own funds then an award would be made IF proved of 30%..In Chm case we are mainly concerned with about 5% (500k as % of 11 mill) and then this has to be traced and proved !!! which is still a long shot...what value do you put on Jack hills now CURRENTLY cos this will be time of transaction if proved...developed stage 1 undeveloped stage 2...maybe $500 mill take lets say 5% equals about 25 mill IF PROVED...No windfall here for CHM shareholders I'm afraid..but potentially a little something