Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Before I respond to "business liquidation" let me clear up one other fact.
Earlier someone had stated that Mr. Eno did not purchase BioAmber shares in the Summer of 2018. This is completely false. He purchase 400K shares at the end of July 2018. Now why would he purchase shares in a company being "liquidated" as you assert, Mr. McCoy?
Rich Eno purchase 400K BioAmber shares in the middle of "liquidation"? An event worth pondering.
To that issue, let me ask: what party to the "negotiations" first used the word, "liquidation", in its discourse. Why .... uh ... that's right! PWC. Hold that thought.
I don't recall Eno or Dugar using "liquidation" in their correspondence or publicly available citations related to the BioAmber case. Maybe they did. I just don't recall it. Perhaps Dugar used it once in passing to reinforce a PWC report. I'm not sure.
But why would PWC use the word? After the entry of KKR in the process, it seems that PWC designed its reports to generate maximum negativity related to BioAmber's future. This persisted throughout the summer ... until the Delaware Court finally "Dismissed" Bankruptcy, in October 2018.
"Liquidation" is a PR word here that would promote what objective PWC had. What was that objective? So Why?
Because they hoped to "liberate" (to use another good "L" word) shares from the "little people" still holding shares in BioAmber. Recall, there were only 139M shares, and we owned 60% of them. When Eno purchased 400k shares, it's likely that was the maximum number of shares available, since he sought to "buy low," not offer a premium. He knew also the "deals" moving through the CCAA process were not completed yet, and possibly still tentative. KKR had not yet signed on the dotted line.
Indeed, for KKR to drop a bag of dough holding $1.56B (as in $billion) on the table seemed like a real "Angel" was fluttering about. But there were still outstanding issues, LCY's viability as a partner notwithstanding. There's something about a felon convicted of a violent crime, even if based on an industrial accident, that propagates real negative vibrations. On the plus side, LCY did have the expertise on running larger plants, and BioAmber did have a goal of adding a second plant to expand its productivity to meet the expected demand for succinic acid emerging by 2025, after the oil prices stabilized at a more favorable level. In a financial crunch, LCY was "affordable" ... perhaps just the partner to work with.
A lot of factors faced those with an interest in moving BioAmber technology forward.
Eliminate negative thinking, and it's clear that the problems facing BioAmber in 2016, when they hired Rick Eno, were temporary. That is a fact to keep in mind. Business managers think long-term. Established businesses have 2 year, 5 year, 10 year, sometimes 15-20 year plans. Its not out of the question that BioAmber promoters were looking much farther into the future than just overcoming the problems they faced in 2017, 2018.
BioAmber had a product that is a substitute for petroleum. Even if this is the only fact you know, you gotta expect that it will not be a passing fad, like selling bags of California sand. Succinic Acid is here to stay for a long time, and BioAmber had its foot in a door that opened up into a wide, new world of biodegradable substances that could do essentially everything petroleum could do.
This is a fact you cannot liquidate. Indeed, what those who disagree with us forget, BioAmber technology is still a highly viable product worth investing in. Why else would KKR jump at the chance to rescue the technology in the summer of 2018, ensuring its ownership would stay in Western business hands?
Inasmuch as the "debate" is still ongoing, whatever deal were made in 2018 to ensure the continued viability of BioAmber technology, the unexpected consequence that a large number of shareholders would hold onto their shares in the face of negative PR promoted by PWC probably shocked a few wheeler-dealers who were looking forward to fast killing in the Stock Market when all settled down.
Mr. McCoy, what is there to agree or disagree? What to you mean by "liquidated", such a negative word?
Do you mean, "liquidated" as in "Stalin liquidate millions of Kulaks in the 1930s," meaning they died and disappeared forever? If this is your sense of the word, then NO!, I do not agree with your statement. For you're implying that like Kulaks losing all their property through Stalin's liquidation process, they had no need for the property, since after their liquidation, their previously owned property now had not value for them.
BioAmber is more than a name of a company. It's referent includes its scientific and economic assets as measured by shareholder investments over years. Seen in this light, "liquidation" does not mean "all BioAmber value" was annihilated by PWC and those whose interests PWC served thought the legal process.
Indeed, BioAmber was not annihilated, which you mean by "liquitated," but it's technologies live on, and so does value of its shares which shareholders invested in. As a matter of fact, this is why the CCAA process exists: to preserve company value through a cooperative process with other interested parties.
You do agree, Sir, this is the intention of the CCAA process, right?
Sir, if I may say so, I do believe you're missing the point. A drive through Sarnia, Ontario, Canada would show that the Sarnia plant has changed hands. No one disputes that. At least I don't.
We dispute the conclusion that our shares have no value, because we know that relevant information has been kept secret. The only apparent financial matter disclosed is the comedic assertion that years of BioAmber intellectual research and productive activity which led to a viable substitution nearly across the board [i.e., "newly relevant technology" for the future, NOT protecting historical technologies 150 years old!] with respect to uses of petroleum was invented and developed was sold via the Canadian CCAA process for $4.34M, ending in some purported ghost bankruptcy.
Lemme see. I think maybe an 8th grader who perused the documentation with knowledge of the fiscal facts and the events would conclude this is a ridiculous.
The question remains: What did happen? Well, what do we know? We know at least two things. 1. We know BioAmber sought to restructure its finances by taking advantage of the Canadian CCAA process, which exists just for that purpose. (It does not exist to facilitate bankruptcy.) 2. We know the statement that BioAmber suffered bankruptcy through the process is False.
Lordy, Lordy, what could have happened?
Yes, what did happen when we weren't looking, or faced sleights of hand, when we were? [Catch a corporate person in one lie, and it's fair to assume we've been misled by other purported information present in not-quite completely honest reports.] Indeed, years of research by biowin, I.E., Sorhay, and others show that BioAmber technology lives on. The value of its shares lives on. There's only a couple paths for this to happen.
Since our conclusions aren't believed, parties who seek to know must do their own research to find out. Think "merger"; examine the possibilities; and, you're half way there. You might begin by ... going back and reading previous biowin and I.E. posts on this forum, if you don't want to do your own research from scratch.
Think! Think how much we can learn.
It would be interesting to know if any PWC employees, present or past, purchased shares in the summer of 2018. We know Mr. Eno purchased nearly half a million shares at the time. Indeed, shareholders, as I recall, owned 60% or so of the shares. Didn't leave much for ... say, friends and relatives of the court monitor, did it. My apologies, if I'm off base with this speculation.
Sir, your point is an irrefutable conclusion. Let me add my concurrence.
I cannot fathom why it is that some posters on this forum continue to promote the false assertion that BioAmber was declared bankrupt, especially by the U.S. Delaware court. It just didn't happen.
In response to my earlier "historical" screed, which I admit was long but added just to refresh memories, Mr. McCoy provided a link to an SEC document purporting to validate the claim that BioAmber was declared bankrupt by both courts, Canadian and American.
Look more closely at that report. It appears to be one dropped on the SEC by PWC. It is clearly a misleading document.
Let me repeat that: the SEC report filed by PWC wherein it apparently hints that the SEC validates BioAmber bankruptcy is MISLEADING and False.
We all know who saw the court order that the U.S court "Dismissed" bankruptcy. Indeed, the very same judge with the case still on his desk, died not long thereafter.
As you suggest, Sir, BioAmber, Inc., was never declared bankrupt by the U.S. court, and I don't think Judge Pinnosault in Canada issued a bankruptcy discharge for BioAmber, Inc., either.
We can comprehend the probabilities once this Truth is grasped and accepted.
After posting my last comment, a few responses were made that I concluded required further comment.
Let me start with a little history. [And I apologize for the length of this piece.]
Those familiar with the science of succinic acid, BioAmber's product produced at their Sarnia plant, know that succinic acid is a key building block for a wide range of secondary chemicals. This includes uses in pharmaceuticals, food, agriculture, and other chemical products. Chemists, or "scientists" studying properties of various chemicals, knew about succinic acid as early as the 16th century. Then it was distilled from amber, and was known as "Spirit of Amber." By 1877 scientists knew that succinic could be used as an antibiotic and natural remedy. Some doctors even used it to treat diabetes.
Until the 20th Century, petroleum was the primary source of succinic acid. With the fearful talk of "peak oil" growing in the later years of the 20th century, research chemists sought ways of deriving succinic acid from sources other than petroleum, not the least because of the high cost involved in producing it from petroleum.
Eventually, researchers who were precursors to those who developed BioAmber's product, proved succinic acid could be fermented from biomass of comprised of various organic materials. A step toward non-petroleum based succinic acid was taken in 2004, when the U.S. Department of Energy placed succinate (a succinic acid salt) on its list of 12 platform chemicals from biomass.
BioAmber, Inc., started as a former joint venture between US-based DNP Green Technology and ARD (Agro-industrie Recherches et Développements), announced the successful start-up and commissioning of the world’s first bio-based succinic acid plant. It set up a test facility in France in 2008. Until BioAmber began producing succinic acid, it was produced primarily from petroleum feedstock.
Now Real McCoy suggested that BioAmber had no successes. Profitability is not the only measure of success. Indeed, with patents in hand, the BioAmber team provided proof of concept with their plant in France. By 2012 the market of succinic acid was around 60 kton/year and was expected to grow to 665 kton/year until 2020. With these numbers, the BioAmber team was, indeed, looking at future of profitability. It was only natural to seek financing for a larger plant. They got the capital, and built the Sarnia plant which began production in late 2015.
In late 2014, BioAmber's CEO, Jean-Francois Huc, stated that BioAmber had two goals: the completion of the Sarnia plant, and developing plans for constructing a second plant.
Unfortunately, just as BioAmber's corporate goals seems to be within finger-tip reach, the price of oil dropped. To make a profit, BioAmber's succinic acid production needed the price of oil to stay above $40/bbl -- not $62/bbl as Mr. Pirate suggested. Unfortunately, during 2015 and 2016, the price dipped quickly from over $100/bbl. to under $35/bbl. in 2016. At the same time, the price of corn sludge rose during 2016, peaking in the summer of 2017. It was at this time, that Richard Eno replaced Jean-Francois Huc as CEO.
We can imagine that the BioAmber team was shocked and depressed as these three years -- 2015, 2016, 2017 -- moved on. Products on whose prices their success depended did not behave as they expected. The future, looking back, looked bleak.
However, the prognosis was not as bleak, it was just difficult to predict. Biowin and I.E., and others, have already show that the market for BioAmber's product has grown in recent years as the original BioAmber team expected. Their prognostications were not wrong, they were just delayed. We don't know what occurred in their deliberations, but they ought to have been able to deduce one historical fact: since 1915 the value of the U.S. Dollar has steadily declined in value, meaning that the cost of goods and services have steadily risen. In short, the oil price was not going to stay at $34/bbl; and, the corn sludge prices would likely decline in direct proportion to any increase in production, from expanding productive farmland, that would increase demand for succinic acid, now cheaper than petroleum-based succinic acid in many secondary products.
Oil prices began 2017 by breaking $50/bbl and hit $75/bbl. at summer's end, but dropped back to $50/bbl in late 2018. Meanwhile, negotiations to restructure BioAmber also closed in 2018. Shareholders know the rest of the story, as least as much as the courts and PWC have revealed.
There is no doubt that BioAmber had a decade of success, getting its proof of concept for a marketable product based on its patents. It succeeded in getting two plants up and running, one smaller test plant in France and the Sarnia plant. The Board was even looking into expanding production with another plant. And it was NO failure when faced with an absolute drop in oil prices.
There are two anomalies in all the information we have is: 1. How could the Board of Directors, or the key financiers supporting BioAmber's venture, agree to sell a $140M plant for $4.34M, not to mention $Billion patents? 2. What happened to the $1.56B that KKR advanced to Visolis/LCY, neither company being in a position to do better than BioAmber, facing the same economic forces and bad luck that posed problems for BioAmber in the first place? Visolis was a starup whose state of financial viability was about the same as BioAmber's was in 2008 or earlier. LCY had just lost a major criminal trial in Taiwan, and it's financial cost was still unclear and success in this area unpredictable. [Bowie Lee probably had to pay his lawyers more than he paid for the Sarnia Plant, if what many naysayers suggest is true.]
Those who say, "LCY bought all BioAmber's assets," haven't proved it. And Deepak's Visolis letter provides but an unrealistic optic.
Meanwhile, we do know that Mr. Eno and PWC, irrespective of their sequence of reports, have not been completely forthcoming with the details of the negotiations for restructuring BioAmber's finances. AND we know that companies today are successfully producing succinic acid in a growing market, likely getting access to BioAmber's original patents.
I'll only conclude with these three points. 1. There's a lot we still don't know about what went on in the wheeling-dealing behind the scenes by Eno and others as BioAmber's assets changed hands. The only thing that makes rational sense is the pursuance of a two-step restructuring process, once the original Visolis/LCY plan fell through, as it had to have done by late June 2018. 2. There are reasonable explanations for the long delay in getting a full legally binding report, includng all the details of the negotiations, which we have a right to know. And 3. PWC and its negatory friends on the forum have left us with an irrational, surrealist picture of the actual state of affairs -- ever seen Edvard Munch's painting, "The Scream", a surrealistic picture of a negative reality?
Looking around today, we see a realist picture of growing success for BioAmber's earlier efforts and continued use of its patents, which we believed in and invested in ... BECAUSE we, too, saw the need to reduce dependency on petroleum and we saw value in investing in a biodegradable product that accomplished the same thing in the economy as barrels upon barrels of oil without destroying the environment.
Please correct me, if I'm wrong -- I'm sure our Canadian friends with shares know the answer -- but isn't it the case that the Canadian CCAA process is available mainly for larger corporations who actually seek to avoid bankruptcy and restructure their finances? It seems to me that, in principle, the CCAA goal is for a company to work with the court and its trustee to develop and implement a plan to ensure the company lives on.
If a corporations seeks to file for bankruptcy or if its lenders require it, isn't there a different legal process? I thought Canada has a similar legal "Discharge" process to that of the USA.
It seems to me that in the early days of Eno's canceling the Shareholder Meeting and pursuing new financing via CCAA, the goal was not to dismantle BioAmber as a viable company, but, given the utility of its patents and technologies, to build on its past successes, including getting a second plant. [Parenthetically, I seem to recall that in a worst case situation regarding a second plant, a Du Pont plant is Las Vegas was for a time available.]
I mention "past successes" because BioAmber does and did have the technology to develop into and stay a successful company. The cause of BioAmber's financial problems as perceived in 2017 were due to a fall in oil prices in 2015-6 and a rise in corn prices sometime before Eno was hired. And wasn't he originally hired for the original purpose of reorganizing BioAmber for the specific purpose of seeking new financing?
It is also the case, I think, that both Eno and Deepak had a prior relationship with PWC, which accounts for the court naming it as the court trustee to steer the company through the CCAA process, in spite of apparent conflicts of interest. Who's familiar with the BioAmber-PWC relationship enough to know if PWC always made decisions favorable to BIoAmber's interests?
Those who maintain that BioAmber is dead and its technologies gone -- and what value might accrue to its shareholders who stuck with the company as it had to endure unexpected events during the last five, six years is wishful thinking -- forget that, as you mention in your message, American bankruptcy was never declared, as the court affirms. In addition, during the summer of 2018, there were "secret" negotiations, whose substance are still not made public, that involved enough money for BioAmber to achieve its key objectives, even if the implementation of whatever results occurred took more time than usual. Whatever "deals" were made were made outside the purview of shareholders, after Eno canceled a scheduled meeting while PWC continued to keep the shareholders in the dark through the entire process, even as Eno purchased shares himself.
In fact, a "restructuring" had to have been a success -- one way or another, for the technology to be productive -- and the only question that remains for us is: what was the final deal, and how will our shares be compensated, after 4 years that included a pandemic and two judges on the case who passed away before they could sign off on the final outcome.
"Yippee Ki Yay!" as John McClane might say. Sure. Following the evidence requires some imaginative discernment to ferret out the facts. Like a detective on a case.
It's fun, no?
Well, Sir, biowin reported that he spoke with the Court Clerk, who reviewed the documentation, and announced that no judicial decision resulted in a BK outcome for BioAmber in 2018. {See his post #130717]. That's good enough for me.
By the way, biowin, there's another issue you in which you might have insight. In May 2018 Eno scheduled a Shareholders' Meeting. Personally, I presume he was going to present a "plan" he cooked up with Visolis and LCY in 2017, but that's just my view.
Do you know what the purpose of the meeting was?
Any idea why it was canceled?
I suspect it had to do with the unexpected outcome of LCY's trial in Taiwan. Lee couldn't then play "angel" to Visolis. But this is speculation. Any ideas?
Of course, it's all moot, especially given the medical crisis that came later. But it had to place a wrench in the gears that Eno had planned to activate ... uh .... just a metaphor, folks.
Thanks for providing irrefutable clarification on the matter of BioAmber, Inc., and bankruptcy, which as you noted the courts specify it did not occur. It is a mystery why so many keep disputing this matter.
In addition, it's also a mystery why, in terms of time, some folks can't comprehend the fact that Covid -- where in some states ... uh ... like Delaware -- government employees were locked down; assemblies were limited to a fixed number of people, as few a 6 in some places. Add to that the fact that two judges died in the interim, over and above the machinations going on behind the scene. I can't imagine the corporate players and the courts were sprinting along during the two years following January 2020. Do you think work might have piled up? [Just askin'.]
One question regarding financing: Do you happen to know what role KKR played in moving the process along in the summer of 2018, over and above providing LCY with sizeable financial backing, whatever its nature ... uh ... before the first judge passed away? Can you clarify this? Thanks.
You're doing and you've done a great job, Sir.
1manband, I appreciate your guidance. It's always important to know what we're talking about. I admit I'm not a certified legal expert on Bankruptcy Law. I agree your advice, generally speaking, is good advice. We just gotta have the facts on such matters.
However, I do know the distinction between "Dismissed" and "Discharged" orders from a Bankruptcy Court. I trust you do, too. In principle, "dismissed" means the court rejects BK. Correct?
In the BioAmber case, I'm fairly confident you won't find a Court Order specifying that the original BioAmber, Inc., Motion for Bankruptcy be successfully "discharged."
In the Autumn of 2018 the Court "dismissed" the Bankruptcy filing. Correct?
Am I wrong to suggest that "dismissed" means essentially the same in a criminal court as in a bankruptcy court? When person is indicted for a crime, in simple terms, he can enter a plea or ask that the case be dismissed for lack of evidence. If the judge dismisses the case, that ends the pursuance of the indictment. Correct?
Of course, a judge may dismiss a case "with prejudice" or "without prejudice." If it's dismissed "with prejudice" it means the petitioner cannot be reentered into the same court for the same reasons it was originally filed. Correct? If the judge dismisses the case "without prejudice", he leaves the door open for a refiling at a later date. Correct?
If my recollection is correct, in the BioAmber case, the Delaware judge dismissed the BioAmber, Inc., the company from which our shares are purchased, "with prejudice", meaning, the petition cannot refile for Bankruptcy for the reasons specified in the original filing. Moreover, I've seen no report that BIoAmber, Inc., has refiled for Bankruptcy and had it successfully discharged after the Autumn of 2018.
Sir, Mr. 1manband, can you tell us when the courts issued Discharge Papers for BioAmber, Inc.'s Bankruptcy? Or ... When was a filing for BioAmber, Inc., bankruptcy discharged from a court?
Just askin'. You brought up the issue of bankruptcy. I may be wrong, but, like I said, I don't recall a court issuing Discharge Papers for BioAmber, Inc., in the last four years. If my recollection is true, then your assertion that BIoAmber went bankrupt and is "gone" my be false.
Think about it. Check it out.
I don't use the Google search engine. So I don't know what information Google displays.
Now the local Sarnia newspaper reported in Oct 2018: "Sarnia’s idle BioAmber plant, which opened in 2015 and cost $140 million to build, has been sold for $4.34 million US as part of a court-supervised liquidation of the company." As many have pointed out, selling a $140 million plant for $4.34 million, or 3% of its original cost, only 3 years after it was built seems incongruent.
Who does that?
For over 50 years, the world and the American people believed that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. Now NASA has presented evidence, even destroyed evidence, which indicates this was not the case. Indeed, it turns out that Stanley Kubrick filmed the event in a highly classified desert location that emulated a moon environment. This was confirmed recently by another astronaut (Buzz Aldrin) and an engineer who worked on the project. If you don't believe it, do some research.
My point is, just because media reports an event ... well, it turns out it's not always true. Indeed, by now it must be clear to most folks that we cannot believe everything the media reports. I.E. has reported several discrepancies in the PWC reports. The discrepancies speak for themselves. There is still much to learn about the BioAmber case. And shareholders still have good reason to presume their shares still have value.
And ... should there have been any outstanding illegalities involved that misled shareholders, especially during the Summer of 2018, you can bet your booties that the "truth" shall be known.
If you're right, Sir, there's no reason to hand around. Correct? Yet, this page seems to be one of the more active forums on iHub.
There are rational reasons for continuing to investigate what has occurred from Autumn 2017 to the present, taking account of all factors and events. Our planet and its people face an energy crisis. BioAmber developed a technology that mediates that crisis. Shareholders appreciate the value of this. And, as I mentioned, we contributed to public confidence until Eno and the Board placed the company on a path that served "somebody's" interests, which should have included our interests. There is still reason to believe that "the Law" in this case, if not the executive actions, worked to preserve our Shareholder interests. Indeed, as I mentioned in another message, events transpired that interrupted the normal flow of activity that would have provided earlier clarity.
Apparently, some folks disagree with this. Wouldn't you agree, though, that repetitive negativity serves no one's interests?
I'm just sayin'.
There is actually a question about the complete veracity of your statement. Recall that LCY lost a felony manslaughter case in Taiwan in April 2018. If I'm not mistaken, penalties included a hefty fine. In addition, it's not likely that Eno welcomed the notion of selling BioAmber to a company locked in a predicament LCY faced.
One theory is: This explains why KKR saw a favorable opening to finance the deal. Of course, there could have been other factors hovering over the deal in the summer of 2018, which re-opened the originally planned process to further considerations. Indeed, a two-step merger was not out of the question, wouldn't you agree?
Then consider the intervening death of the first primary judge and late Covid.
In short, Sir, I think the "deal" ultimately became much more complicated than your conclusion presupposes.
I'd say, it depends on what you mean by "gone." I think biowin might disagree. He seems to be on top of current developments. The question is: are there any "developments" yet to be implemented which are helpful to our interests. I.E. has pursued these matters. After all, our investing during 2018 helped keep BioAmber afloat to contribute to a constructive "faith-in-the-technology" atmosphere, which served someone's interests other than our own during ongoing "liquidation" discussions, where "liquidation" appears to be a misleading term, legally.
There's no doubt that the 'BioAmber' name has emerged out of the manipulations, perhaps Black Swam surprises, of 2018, some we know about, some we don't. At least the business media is again talking about the technology.
In my view, there's little doubt that Eno/Visolis/PWC were surprised, when their plans surreptitiously conceived in 2017 crashed in May, eight or so months later.
My question is: In their scramble to preserve a future viable BioAmber name and product, did they succeed in throwing shareholders under the bus? That's us.
It looks like it. Perhaps Eno, as the prime Exec, initially did try to preserve something, but Eno's interests and Visolis's interests did not fully converge, and Eno was holding the short straw, especially after LCY lost its Taiwan legal case. It's unclear where PWC's loyalties lay.
With possible five governments making a play to dominate succinic acid production -- USA, Canada, PRC, ROC, and Japan ... not to mention France, perhaps Holland -- wouldn't it be obvious that the control of the patents need to be settled before other considerations? After all, BioAmber's product is a substitute for out-of-the-ground petroleum. Wouldn't a global-level deal take precedence?
Consider: how long did it take Edison and Tesla to settle their conflict over control of electricity and electrification of production? A decade or two? Can we be watching a similar kind of struggle, without identifiable human players? If so, who knows the "real players"? Who are today the people behind the struggle to control BioAmber technology? Is this even a pertinent question? If it is, what do we know? And ... when we find out, will be have any legal standing in the outcome of events?
Or are we just like leaves being tossed about on the waves during a storm at sea?
Just asking.
I tend to agree with you, Dog. Good things ought to be coming. However, our present expectations seems to be based on inference rather than evidence. Those who have done the best DD, IE, biowin, Sorhay, and others, present their case using logical inference based on financial documents. Some conclusions, or explanations, for a payout are positive ... but contradictory in their deductions.
Proof would be a document that reads, "Shareholders of BIOA stock will, after four years, receive payout of $22/share for the purchase of the shares in 2018."
Or, another possibility: "In 2018 BioAmber merged with XXX.co. The legal process took some time due to aaaa. As of <date> all BIOA shares will convert to KKKK at a market value of $22/share."
When we see something like this, we can rest easy. Until we see some direct proof ... the debate will continue.
On the questions of patents, isn't it true that patents expire after a specified time? When were the major BIOA patents registered? If all their assets were bought, so were the patents. Seems to me whoever now owns the patents will be running out of time, with respect to "generic" production of succinic acid.
Another reason would be to keep succinic acid off the market for as long as possible, favoring petrochemical interests.
Anyone confirm this? Could this be a reason for the delay, if the Canadian government owns a key share block. Wouldn't Trudeau, or his gov't, seek to protect petrochemical interests. It seems to me someone awhile back suggested Canada own BIOA shares at one point.
When do the patents on BioAmber technology run out timewise?
What is the present status of the merger? IE and biowin have done great DD. Latest is that there's a 60 day deadline from June 20th or thereabouts of a financial report.