Interesting posts we have going here.I dont know what Nasty1 is...

Interesting posts we have going here.

I dont know what Nasty1 is typing with as he is so busy with lefty and righty his current and ex girlfriends.

Then we have Glyna a retired investor in south australia who has a hotline straight to MMX and getting information ahead of market as Bionic boy pointed out.

Apparently he also has a hotline to Posco and Harbinger as well as he says like him they are happy. I am sure they would be telling the market otherwise. Also even if they are not happy how can they exit given the price Posco in particular paid.

Does that mean MMX is also providing information to these shareholders and not to the gerneral market place.

naughty naughty Paul

If party A got issued shares for "services rendered" then MMX has to show that these parties did something for CHM, rendered an invoice and included it in their income tax return as part of their income for that year.

CHM to prove otherwise had to show registry with shares been issued, state to court that there was no consideration paid and that at the same time these people were selling the shares they were investing in Nicu.

MMX had to prove otherwise which is a bit hard to do if previous management doesnt want to get on stand.

In relation to leases CHM I understand produced witnesses who stated that this deal was put via Nicu as part of the manipulation of B and G to orchestrate purchase and book a profit through Nicu to raise funds.

Its not "just business" when a director and defacto director are doing something for personal gain and to provide benefit to Nicu. Thats corp law 101.

For MMX to prove otherwise they needed B and G to get on stand. Oh they didnt, bad luck on that one.

Glyna I am not sure who is telling you that the statements of the missing 5 still stand but that would set a whole new precedent in case law. How can it be relied on when they are not prepared to be cross examined on their evidence.

MMX have stated previously to the court that their defence was effectively B and G defence. This crumbled so what was MMX defence ?

It seems their only defence from what I can find out was a quantitive arguement. Not a "no foundation" arguement but one that went along the lines of maybe all this did happen but it wasnt that big a contribution your honour.