Glyna - you were not around at the time these transactions took...

Glyna

- you were not around at the time these transactions took place.

- you were not at court.

- your postings rely on the word of a nameless MMX insider telling you everything is fine

It is my understanding that CHM presented to court evidence that showed through a variety of means the defendents profited substantially from the misuse of CHM.

Are you saying that Barnes a director and Grimaldi a de facto director of CHM have not breached their fiduciary duty in flowing a deal that was always going to CHM through Nicu to book a profit and that Nicu now called MMX did not gain a benefit from this transaction.

Are you saying that the investors who got issued shares in CHM for no consideration sold them and then invested in Nicu was all one big co-incidence.

The direct funds was the easy one. They obviously could not get a scam going that time so just wrote cheques out of CHM.

Which part of this has MMX actually disproved.

5 key witness refused to take the stand.

The defence I understand turned into a quantative arguement from MMX side. That is if all this did happen your honour it wasnt that big a scam and didnt result in that big a contribution.

Problem is even this arguement is full of holes.

This reminds me of a little story I was told once about a boxer.

As he returned to his corner his trainer said to him
"Your doing great mate he has hardly touched you"

The boxer replied
" Well you better keep an eye of the ref cause someone is beating the hell out of me".

From the info I have managed to gather if MMX think that it went well in court for them I wonder what they believe constitutes it going badly.