You're trying so hard.

It's so obvious.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.

My best suggestion is that if you ever find yourself in an interrogation room, just ask for an attorney and don't say anything! The more you debate the easier it gets. Let's explore this gem:

Oh really?! It's hard not to laugh, I'm certain all your buddies are telling you to zip it, you're going to blow everyone's cover. Remember, everyone is here just for entertainment. Remember the narrative, "Nothing needs to happen because everything has already happened." Shareholders don't need to do anything. And the so-called "guardians of the truth", the self-anointed ever-loving and altruistic shareholder pant sniffers who are simply on perpetual stand-by to steer shareholders away from their own delusions, they too have zero at stake. Turds and giggles. That is, of course, until you blurted out you know for a fact you won't get burned.

How, pray tell, would you get burned?!

Now listen, we all understand. We get it. You're not going to get burned. We all know because you told us. Fine. But hypothetically, entertain us, what would have to happen for you to get burned? Whatever this scenario entails, it obviously has not happened yet, otherwise you would have simply stated you "didn't get burned". But you didn't say that.

Look folks, it's a fun game, but you're obviously stuck shorts unable to close your positions. And of course you don't "care" about shares or what shareholders do with them, for stuck short investors shares are just vehicles to get paid. It's a matter of semantics. For the stuck short investor they're just inert units of measure, (so they hope), albeit required in order to close out the short position. It's the path the bullet took that killed Kennedy. You all will say anything, literally anything as long as at the end of the line shareholders "give up" and "let go".

Looking forward to the copy-paste responses about how shareholders are out 100%, nobody wants shares, blabbity blah blah blippity blah blah blah, because remember...


DO GOVERN YOUR ENTERTAINMENT ACCORDINGLY

Looks like we're getting the old band back together!

You know, debating the outcome of BioAmber with the chances of being 95% right is a pretty weak position. That 5% will bury you every time.

After all this time, the fact that we're all still here singing the same song is more than enough evidence the situation is well within the 5% zone.

DO GOVERN YOUR WRONGNESS ACCORDINGLY

VISOLIS, LCY CHEMICAL CORP, LCY BIOSCIENCES, AND KKR

BioAmber completed the CCAA proceedings (Companies Creditor's Arrangement Act), on December 23, 2019 upon the filing of the Discharge Certificate. Under CCAA, (Canada law, not US) BioAmber was not in liquidation, receivership, or bankruptcy. The monitor was PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) with extended powers from the Canadian court, and facilitated sales transactions with Visolis and LCY Chemical Corp, which together formed the joint venture LCY Biosciences "LCYB", the designated purchaser that purchased and will now continue to operate the Sarnia plant.

LETTER OF INTENT FOR INVESTMENT IN BIOAMBER INC.





LCY Chemical Corp. itself was purchased by KKR in a 1.5 billion dollar acquisition.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Did you short BioAmber?

A simple, good faith question that someone who presents themselves as concerned with the truth should want to publicly answer.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Shareholders realize the continual arguments from "non-shareholders" are running dry, so you're really left with attacking shareholders themselves. We get it. However, I do agree with the following:

Still, it must be very frustrating to spend years making zero progress convincing shareholders of your opinion, but what would you expect repeating the exact same thing over and over again for years? Shareholders didn't buy the argument then, they don't buy it now. Surely it is not the amount of times something is said that makes it true or false. To the contrary, repeating an argument ad nauseum is a kind of defeated position, nearly an outright admission the argument itself is not convincing.

Truth needs no pitchman. It is self-evident.

BioAmber shares have not been cancelled. Now, you and other non-shareholders can howl at the moon, curse, attack, pester, coerce, bully, demean, criticize, laugh at, make fun of, name-call, chastise, accuse, harass, and otherwise sniff the pants of shareholders for as long as you want, but it will not change that truth. Shareholders are free to sit and enjoy doing nothing, agree to nothing, no outcome, no deadline, nothing. The shares are sitting in accounts. That is an inescapable fact and requires zero deductive reasoning or years spent repeating the same talking points over and over in an attempt to convince or persuade others. It is a self-evident truth. Which is why nobody is arguing about it.

However, things that are not self-evident, those things people debate about. The fact that 4 plus years has transpired and the disagreement continues in and of itself tells us that the outcome is not self-evident. Ultimately, it may or may not matter why so many non-shareholders continue to remain on the scene of all things BioAmber.

Mens Rea

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

This is the funniest thing I've heard all year.

There you have it, folks. Your shares just "disappear". What a joke. This is absolute pure desperation. More word games in order to deceive and coerce shareholders.

Shares can be thought of as actual physical pieces of paper. They do not, ever, ever, ever, in any reality, just "disappear". Shares no sooner just "disappear" any more than a shareholder's ability to take a tax loss just "disappears". Shareholders, if you forfeit your shares by taking a tax loss, those shares will no longer be in your account. Your broker will have them.

The shorts are stuck. That is the simplest answer. And brokers require shares in order to release funds being held as collateral in stuck short's accounts. The only way to get actual shares is for shareholders to voluntarily forfeit them through a tax loss. And those shares will remain in existence.

The official (aka, legal) Discharge Certificate was filed on December 23, 2019. That started a legal clock. If LCY (or anyone) broadcasted any agreements to go public within five years, or otherwise execute on an "arrangement", what date would it put that occurring by?

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Interesting.

In this fictional dialogue, are you the lawyer?

Asking for a group of friends.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

My reasoning is easy to follow, notwithstanding the personal shots you like to sprinkle in with your opinions. And that is that open stuck short positions is the simplest answer. It "solves" a lot of the curiosity that so many shareholders have wondered about; why are there so many individuals still so engaged with BioAmber that seem hell bent on getting them to "let go", or "accept the outcome", etc. Further, why do they all have the same bitter tone, vitriol, and often what seems like outright anger and rage toward shareholders?

I didn't ask about "any stock". I asked about BioAmber. I have already stated several times if at this point in time an individual doesn't have an open stuck short position, then the reason for so much bullying and vitriol toward shareholders is likely far worse and "centralized".

Note well the following word: Intent.

It's easy enough to envision one lone wolf. One nut job. One single MrPotatoHead who wants to forever distract themselves by sniffing the pants of shareholders for years to follow. But two? Three? Eight? Ten? All with the exact same message?

As Judge Judy would say, "I don't believe you!"

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Fine, then just dispel the myths.

Did you short BioAmber?

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Just a second!

You just said this is a public board for discussion as your entire premise, and yet here you are now saying that if anyone posts anything that you deem "BS" or "tripe", that they should leave and go somewhere else!!!

Six seconds later...


Sounds like the person who wants a forum without any dissenters is you.

This is actually extremely motivating. You're not running anyone off with your childish fantasies that no one disagrees with you, the self-anointed, and tuck tail and run to your alternate platform suggestions.

Continue to have fun with those fees.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

FACT: Shares have not been cancelled.

You need to read this as well:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173116628

Oh, the irony!!!

If the fact that shares have not been cancelled and shareholders choose to do what they want with their own accounts, you always have the right to remain silent.

DO GOVERN THOSE FEES ACCORDINGLY

One has a sneaking suspicion you have been tased at some point in your lifetime.

Well, there it is again! Fascinating. Working in that "TAKE THE TAX LOSS". Of course, to be fair, you did qualify that by saying no one cares, albeit you used a bit more colorful language.


Actually, no. Can you expound on this a little bit and explain why you don't care if shareholders take the tax loss? Is there something else that you do care about? If so, is there something shareholders can do for you?

We're here to help.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

No.

You can provide as much "evidence" as you want. Your broker can do exactly nothing with evidence. Brokers do not transact on "evidence". They transact on shares.


Listen, even if your broker completely agrees with you, they still require actual shares to release any funds being held. And if they do not have any in their inventory, the must get them from actual shareholders. They can't just steal them, they must now wait until shareholders voluntarily forfeit them. The broker can leave the stuck short position open indefinitely, it's just numbers on the screen. As long as the stuck short investor is willing to pay the fees, they can let it sit there forever. Those numbers will not become "real" until there are actual shares available for those investors to buy back and close those positions.

But what is real are those fees.

Nevertheless, feel free to continue to argue that brokers (or investors) do not require actual shares in order to engage in a legal transaction. And in this case we are specifically talking about positions (long or short) that were open when FINRA suspended the CUSIP in November of 2019.

DO GOVERN YOUR FEES ACCORDINGLY

Evening Hulk,

Question of the year!

Since the jackals and hyenas are forever and indefinitely sniffing the pants of shareholders, let us all look forward to the keyboard gymnastics that are certain to follow.

Given the time spent and sheer amount of non-shareholders howling at the moon, one starts with the simplest answer. There are stuck short positions and their brokers require shares in order to close out and transfer funds to those account holders. In the meantime, said broker is holding their funds as collateral. Albeit, they are holding those funds for a fee, since the broker is owed shares. No doubt any brokers who had shares in their inventory already exhausted those shares in order to resolve as many short sales as possible, but brokers are now left being owed shares they borrowed from actual shareholders. And since there has been no legal or regulatory event de facto determining BioAmber shares are worthless (for example, an amendment to articles cancelling shares would have done it, but did not happen), and since the shares are currently not publicly tradeable (FINRA suspended CUSIP# 09072Q106), short investors and their brokers are left with only one current pathway to acquire shares. Drumroll...

Shareholders voluntarily forfeit them.

Now, depending on when any short seller entered the BioAmber scene, they likely short sold at a PPS of anywhere between ~65 cents (entering a position in mid-to-late 2017), all the way down to roughly 5 to 11 cents (playing the "Q" stock game, coming on the scene between May - August 2018). Most likely we're seeing so-called "Q stock players", since most of them warn against playing such a game (a sure sign it is precisely the game they are playing) and the bashing started precisely at the resignation of the board of directors, which is certainly the catalyst event that brought out the majority of vultures looking for a corpse to peck.

But the corpse didn't die.

Since a broker is going to charge interest fees on margin accounts, what this means is any stuck short positions will continually suffer from eroding funds due to the ongoing fees being charged on these owed shares. Fees, fees, fees. Oh those pesky fees. And that brings us to the most important value to enter into a "vested interest equation" for non-shareholders.

TIME.

Every second, every hour, every day, every week, every month, every year that goes by without BioAmber shareholders voluntarily forfeiting their shares reduces any potential gain for a stuck short position via interest fees, until presumably at some future point this value will reach zero. In short (pun intended), stuck shorters are watching their potential "gains" evaporate and erode before their very eyes.

Now, "they" will say there are no stuck shorts. Fine. "We" will just as easily say there are no stuck longs. How does anyone know? Round and round we go, one big gaggle of keyboard-fighters forever interested in BioAmber. Nobody is anything.

I digress.

The official (aka, legal) Discharge Certificate was filed on December 23, 2019. That started a legal clock. If LCY (or anyone) broadcasted any agreements to go public within five years, or otherwise execute on an "arrangement", what date would it put that occurring by?

Asking for a friend.

DO EXORCIZE YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Bioamber CUSIP# is 09072Q106

Which would be disposing of them. Sounds like you're saying they cannot be disposed, but they also can be disposed. A broker writing a check for one penny or one dollar constitutes a legal transaction. Now, what shareholder in their right mind would "dispose" of all their shares for a penny?



There it is! Tax season is right around the corner! Shareholders want to thank you for all of your unsolicited and professional tax advice on what they should do with their shares and helping guide and walk them through the process of taking a tax loss. Especially since it is completely in good faith and without any conflict of interest whatsoever.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Sorry to break the news to you, Champ, you have precisely zero idea what my theory is, although it's good to know you were able to summon the courage to clarify your previous statements and give the date of 2016 as what you consider the "start". I wouldn't want any mouth breathing barn dwellers speaking for me, either.

In regards to PTT and Greenfield, nobody is going to do your DD for you, it is well documented what PTT's response was to PwC "accidental" disclosure. Still, that particular event is just one potato in the 500 lb sack of all things BioAmber, it's worth taking inventory of it, but there is a far bigger picture at play.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Do you all meet in a barn in the middle of a cornfield somewhere?

Since you've taken up the role of being the mouthpiece for your colleague it sounds like what you're claiming by "management fraud" that "started this mess" is the pre-Eno class action. Embarrassing. If your team would pop their heads out of the barn doors every once in awhile, you'd know that PwC has been accused of fraud and some individuals place the "start of this mess" at the moment PwC put their hands on the file.

One of the most obvious events is PwC's "accidental" disclosure of bids from billion dollar companies PTT and Greenfield.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

There you have it, folks.

When pressed to clarify and expound on their claim, they ask you to support it with a valid source.

Nobody is going to work on your claim. You said it. You back it up.

You said there was accounting/management fraud. You, therefore, support it with something else other than your own ambiguous words. Attempting to compel third parties to justify your statements with dubious and vague responses such as "it's out in the public arena", is embarrassingly elementary.

With all due respect, give the keyboard back to your dad. This is Logic 101.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Actually no, not "however you want to look at it".

Quite the claim and, accounting fraud versus management fraud can be two entirely different things. So, can you expound on this claim? Is there a link or screenshot or example or document or anything besides your own words that supports this?

Additionally, when you say "start of this mess", what date or event signifies the "start"?

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Are you seriously suggesting to shareholders that they can take a tax loss and retain their shares?

Is this your professional advice as a lawyer to shareholders?

Shareholders cannot take a tax loss without "forfeiting" their shares. Whatever word games or semantics you want to play, claiming the loss makes them worthless, such that there could never then be a capital gain. Think of shares as actual pieces of paper. You cannot claim a tax loss and a capital gain. It will be one or the other, or neither. If you claimed a loss, your shares are definitely now worthless. And that is entirely different than having the opinion that shares are worthless before taking a tax loss, which of course is the fundamental back-and-forth that continues to occur in regards to BioAmber.

So, if you want to play word games and say the shares are "still in the account", fine, albeit they now have a different status, but that is really threading the needle and close the proverbial fire of disinformation. Once a tax loss is taken there is zero reason for shares to remain in the account. Perhaps they do it differently up there in Canada, but once a tax document is created by the broker there is no reason for that position to remain "sitting there".

In any case, shareholders should always check with their broker, attorney, or tax advisor before making such a decision, and definitely not listen to the temper tantrum ramblings of disgruntled internet attorneys.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

You are deeply delusional if you think anyone believes non-shareholders would waste 5 years of their life debating the same talking points ad nauseam for no potential material gain.

Intent.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Are you listening to yourself?

Using your own claim here the stock *must not be dead* since precisely zero long positions have been closed!!!


Obviously your broker is not buying such "evidence".

Still, literally every single word you are arguing is leading you to the position to outright suggest to shareholders to voluntarily forfeit their shares and take a tax loss. It sure is a long time to spend sniffing the pants of shareholders and not outright recommend they forfeit their shares. Of course, maybe you are practicing your right to remain silent. Good choice.

It has become embarrassingly obvious you need shareholders, but shareholders do not need you.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Yes, the fascination with shareholders' "state of mind" is definitely a curiosity.

Of course, since stuck short individuals would have a material gain from shareholders forfeiting their shares (allowing brokers of these stuck short positions to release funds being held as collateral), one must necessarily present an alibi, a substitute, if you will, for one's actual intent.

So, think about the word intent. Take it on good authority, the word and meaning of intent is and will be extremely important.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Take it up with your broker. There is nothing shareholders can do for you.



Or is there? Why would you ask or suggest to shareholders to forfeit their shares? Is it because your broker needs shares to release the funds being held as collateral in your open and stuck short accounts? How much does it cost to keep those accounts open anyways? Shareholders enjoy not having to pay a dime, but just curious, does your broker charge you monthly for those open short accounts, or is that like a yearly fee? How does that work? Those fees certainly must be annoying. Must be where all the scorn and vitriol for shareholders comes from. Especially after five years.

That's a long time to be sniffing the pants of shareholders.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

FINRA suspended the CUSIP.

Tax season must be fast approaching, the shareholder pant sniffers are getting desperate.


CUSIP# 09072Q106
ISIN# US09072Q1067
SEDOL# BF2YLH8

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

There you have it, folks!

Four seconds later...



Responses without explanation. One must therefore assume the intended purpose is to continue to chastise, berate, insult, discourage, harass or otherwise sniff the pant legs of shareholders for whatever reason. Keep in mind, this is a group of people you claim has already "lost everything". And yet, the pant sniffing continues! Maybe it's those pesky shares. Oh those wonderful shares!

Still, you do have the right to remain silent.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

We all look forward to your silence.

You have the right to remain silent.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

You do not know what you are writing.

Good for you. Anyone can say this. Here, I'll say it to you. If you don't know what you're reading, seek the advice of a professional who can explain it to you. This, of course, is the ultimate non-answer. Feel free to explain what you are saying, versus putting the responsibility on the reader to navigate the murky waters of your semantics. Take that as professional advice.


No. "Relating to BioAmber Sarnia Inc." is absolutely incorrect according to PwC themselves. The word "Company" (with a capital "C") specifically means all three companies, e.g. BioAmber Inc. (where the shares are), BioAmber Sarnia Inc., and BioAmber Canada Inc. So when PwC says, "sale of the Company", they are referring to all three companies. This information is so critical that PwC defines it at the top of each report:



Accordingly, since BioAmber Inc. is the US Parent company and sole shareholder of BioAmber Sarnia Inc. and BioAmber Canada Inc., a "sale of the Company" must necessarily include BioAmber Inc.'s shares (as a company) in the subsidiaries it owns, namely BioAmber Sarnia Inc. and BioAmber Canada Inc. Shareholders own shares in BioAmber Inc., and BioAmber Inc. itself owns shares in its subsidiaries. Note line item [6] from the Pinsonnault judgement:




Next.


Which "company"? Because when you write it with a lowercase "c" (is that on purpose?), you could be referring to any one of three separate legal entities.


You did it again. Why are you keeping the word "company" in lowercase? Which company?! Do you know what you are writing? You suggest readers seek professional advice and that's exactly what you should seek as you are either playing games or you are woefully incompetent.

Now, you and others have continued to argue that there was no "sale of the Company". You must, at minimum, account for Section 26. in the Ninth Report. Did PwC make an error on Section 26? Did they actually mean to use another word, such as "liquidation of the Company", or "asset sale of the Company"? Or did they mean to say, "sale of BioAmber Sarnia Inc." or "sale of BioAmber Sarnia Inc.'s assets"?

Note that if PwC makes an error they have a responsibility to correct it before the court, in particular any error that is material to creditors or other stakeholders. This is easy enough to understand in a case where PwC might make an error on a particular number, for example if they reported the assets have a bid for 43,340,000 USD, when in fact they meant 4,340,000 USD. PwC would have to cite the error and correct it, otherwise in failing to do so and omitting such a correction they would risk being liable for gross negligence or willful misconduct.



At no future time did PwC cite and correct Section 26. from the Ninth Report, i.e. "sale of the Company".

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

PwC, Ninth Monitor's Report to the court. For starters.



DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

There you have it, shareholders.

Quite a direct statement. Of course, the interesting aspect to begin with is the overall topic of BioAmber shareholders choosing to forfeit shares for the purposes of a tax loss. For those who have the opinion that shares are worthless (note: being unable to buy or sell a share is not the same as "worthless"), it would seem odd to then tell shareholders not to take a tax loss. In fact, it's not even logical. It would make quite a bit more sense to simply outright suggest to shareholders to forfeit their shares because, after all, the opinion being advanced is that they are worthless.

So what gives?

Could it be the actual hope is that BioAmber shareholders do, in fact, forfeit their shares?! However, suggesting this directly to shareholders would result in a material gain to short investors since brokers require shares in order to close out any open short positions. Again, they must have shares in order to release any funds currently held as collateral in those accounts. So, the best they can do is to revert to some half-baked reverse psychological ploy and say, "Do not take the tax loss!!" Think of this tactical con as "The Real McPloy".

Inevitably, the response will be that there are no open stuck short positions. They will argue they were all closed out, they don't exist, nothing to see here, move along. And yet, in the same breath will come with extended and expert tax advice such as the following:


Thanks for the expert advice, tax advisor! So, if there is any possibility of the stock having a positive value in the future, BioAmber shareholders definitely should not forfeit their shares. We all greatly appreciate the time and energy being spent helping guide shareholders to their own best interests, which apparently, they know not.

Still, it is what is not said that often speaks loudest. Nobody is directly recommending to shareholders to forfeit their shares for a tax loss or for any purposes. For good reason.

Now, there is no salvation in the responses that will follow that there are no open stuck short positions. In the first place, one could make the argument there are no open long positions. How would anyone know? Second, the motivation and time spent intending to discourage and demoralize shareholders into some "psychological state of acceptance" is precisely the kind of punitive action one would expect from someone who either has something to lose or something to gain. It is not, as we are embarrassingly led to believe, derived from some form of altruistic motivation to call out "BS" wherever and whenever it is encountered. And third, if not that, then the answer for such continuous punitive action taken against BioAmber shareholders over the course of 4 years is likely far, far, far worse, and for which my strong "opinion" is that one always has the right to remain silent.

Nobody cares about your state of mind. Nobody cares about your psychological journey as an investor. What "they" do care about, and the one thing BioAmber shareholders do have is shares. Shares, shares, shares. Oh those wonderful shares!

Take this on good authority, the super majority of those shares reside in the accounts of very few shareholders.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

A few questions.

Are you actually recommending to BioAmber shareholders to not take a tax loss? Or is this some kind of sarcastic, half-baked attempt at reverse psychology to actually encourage BioAmber shareholders to forfeit their shares and take a tax loss? And if you are recommending BioAmber shareholders not take a tax loss because "it's 5 years old anyway", are you saying because of the time that has past that BioAmber shareholders cannot take a tax loss?

Additionally, can you let us all know the exact date you are using to arrive at "5 years old"? The CCAA proceedings were completed with the filing of the Discharge Certificate on December 23, 2019. That date is less than 4 years ago. FINRA's suspension of the CUSIP was in November of 2019 which would mark 4 years ago.

And remember, you don't have to answer these questions. You always have the right to remain silent.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

It was the CCAA process.

The Nexant appraisal valued the Sarnia plant in a "distressed scenario" for over $20 million USD, the scrap metal value alone far exceeded $4 million. The fact the creditors did not object is very telling, and not because of some psychological state of understanding bankruptcy as you would have people believe (which BioAmber was not in the status of bankrupt under the BIA, it was the CCAA process). There is no reason for a creditor to even show up in court under such a scenario, and would be better off saving the attorney's fees.



Taking control of their assets would be the reasonable thing to do! Burn it to the ground for scrap metal and sell the land. They would have walked away in far better shape.

It's almost as if the creditors wanted the Sarnia plant to remain in operation. Why, pray tell, would a creditor be interested or care if the plant remained in operation? PwC referred to it as a sale of operations and to the $4.3 million as "upfront".

In any case, this has all been poured over a hundred times. You'll have to take it up with PwC or your broker if those seeming inconsistencies with a "bankruptcy" or "liquidation" narrative bothers you. Or reach out to Marc Duchesne, but then again he himself said it was the restructuring of BioAmber.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Yes, and so it was their assets.

Does anyone think they would sign off on their rights to those assets for pennies? They would lose money in legal fees and showing up in court just to sign the release papers! Want to keep going?

You always have the right to remain silent.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

What outcome?

Would that be the "sale of the Company" or the "sale of the Company's operations to Visolis and LCY"?



If you have an issue with this outcome take it up with PwC. Maybe give ol' Marc Duchesne a shout out. He was closely involved in the restructuring outcome of BioAmber Inc. (where the shares are). So strange he didn't list it under liquidations. But don't take my word for it. He'll tell you himself.



He might even file that paperwork for you to release those funds being held by your broker as collateral in your 100% stuck short position.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Classic.

So, you're saying someone else will make your argument for you. And apparently you can't be bothered with such trifles as defending your own argument with sources that you ultimately want everyone to believe. That's not very convincing or persuasive.

Further, you want to place a bet that if you can prove it, shareholders should accept "the outcome" (whatever that means). Quite ironic, as you now want to make an argumentative bet on margin (borrowing against the future possibility that you can even prove the 3K), in the hopes of winning an argument about an outcome.

But it's not about the outcome of BioAmber. This is about why you are here. And if it's not an open short position, it's likely far far worse, but nevertheless financially motivated. As always, you and others do have the right to remain silent.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

So you're admitting your entire argument rests on you "recalling".

I'm afraid that's not going to quite cut it. As your Lifetime friend would say, "Prove it".

Prove the 3K.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

EXACTLY!!!

You jokers can't even get out of your own way.

Prove the 3K.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

How do you know?

There are reports of hundreds of thousands in short interest that is still open.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY

Take it up with your broker, Joker.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY