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.
So you’re saying it’s settled after a LinkedIn drop of a guy who works for the asset buyer who PROMISED they weren’t paying any more?
And this is after you publicly admitted that you could not find ANYTHING AT ALL to support a second transaction after the failure of the SISP? Are you sure you are arguing in good faith here?
Disgusting. Hopeless.
Will you announce that you understand it’s over when the class action ends and nothing happens?
Well I’ve asked you now a half dozen times for one shred of evidence that there is a second transaction etc etc etc.
But yes I’d say anyone who had any shares that didn’t sell them for a dime or a penny would need to have their head examined. Obviously.
The public couldn’t see all the work in progress. We don’t know if Mica lied or GFive lied. We just know the final outcome, since that was the one approved by the court.
Disengenuous to ignore my posts on the impossibility to transfer shares.
Its just disengenuous to try to put that snippet, an alleged conversation recounted by the losing bidder, on the same plane as the actual signed APA approved by the courts.
The best interest stuff has been debunked so thoroughly its weird its still brought up. Its in the best interest of all stakeholders and shareholders to accept the best deal available. And that happened. As evidenced by the selected deal from all the official bids that were also provided in the 6th report.
The CUSIP is suspended, the ticker is deleted. There is no exchange that can recognize a new legal owner of shares.
For a dime per share literally anyone with a brain would be willing to sell. But again, someone can answer however they want because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONVEY SHARES. Is a buyer going to pay the money now and accept an IOU for shares in the laughably impossible event that they become tradable again?
Its not possible to convey shares now that the ticker is deleted. Its literally not possible. So you can discuss a "deal" for someone's shares all you want knowing that it is completely irrelevant and no one will ever be put to that test.
I don't think his intent was to get into another argument over the choice of a descriptive noun with someone with the time and interest to get into the semantic back and forth over the choice of descriptive nouns but apparently not to provide any, zero, nada shred of physical written evidence that back up his main argument. Other than hints, clues, etc.
Just for fun- I'll ask again - any mention of a second transaction, an amount, a party, date, anything post the failure of the SISP?
Of course not. You could, but you "just don't want to".
Anyway, I think the poster's intent was to point out that an argument lost but not admitted to is just bad faith. Now act as if you haven't seen this, or peck away at my grammar while avoiding the truth.
Then why pay the settlement if you can get it thrown out by paying less in legal fees than the settlement amount?
A settlement doesn't prove you're guilty, but it proves there is enough there that you can't get it thrown out without a legal fight. It certainly rises a case above the level of "frivolous".
I believe it was a bad faith offer on your part due to the hurdles involved to consummating such a transaction. You’ve made the offer to promote your confidence in an outcome for which it is a forgone conclusion that it cannot exist and you won’t be tested because no one will be able to take you up in such offer. I don’t believe there is actually a legal way to convey shares at this point with the ticker deleted for good. Honestly.
But for the record, if you’re offering .0052 not just per share but for someone’s whole lot of shares- they would be out of their mind not to accept if it’s actually possible to do. That’s because I’m of the understanding that shares are worth 0 with a 0% risk that that is not correct. Technically, you should be willing to offer up to an amount that you believe shares are worth with an adjustment for risk. Since there comedically has continued to be assertions of oddities like “cancellation fantasy” that would indicate you should be willing to offer close to the whole theoretical value (whatever that is since no one can indicate a counterparty, date, method or price) per share of a “second transaction”.
Of course I can't!!!! it doesn't exist!!!! Nobody can!!!!
None of the snippets have EVER referenced a second transaction. They have purportedly referenced the company being "alive". Patent activity, a new address, etc. There has never, ever been a single detail, name, amount, or reference to a "transaction" after the liquidation, ever.
I just think people should be forced to evidence their beliefs if they want to argue them. The reason is because I don't believe a rational person could possibly believe the second transaction nonsense, and I think they will cling to it despite no evidence just to avoid losing the argument. And thats silly.
Goodness gracious can you just supply one piece of evidence?? Why spend any keystrokes other than simply providing this one piece that has been asked for repeatedly???
It will be because they would otherwise run out of money. It won't mean for sure that the share price will go down, but since it will be dilutive, if the share price does not go down, it would mean that it would be higher but for the dilution. Same as the last raise where the market cap has appreciated, but the share price has generally languished.
So...are you officially admitting you cannot provide a single shred of a mention of a second deal after the failure of the SISP? Since we all know that’s a “yes”, is that not an admission, however painful, that this is over?
Why is this so difficult? The "research reports" are about industries. The data they collected has been proven time and again, to be dated prior to the liquidation of this company, and then they use the data to make projections into the future.
What part?
Take you, for example. After repeated inquiries, you still cannot come up with ONE SINGLE piece of evidence of a mention of a second transaction after the failure of the SISP. Allowing the question to go unanswered is the same thing as an admission, as it means you cannot answer.
The vast majority have acknowledged they were incorrect, mostly by slinking away. It is a bit disappointing after all the back and forth that they seem to prefer to go away rather than admit it. But oh well.
Why does the market disagree so strongly? Let me guess: it just doesn’t get it?
Fair enough.
I just don't know about this guy. On the one hand, leading a 50M company and employing 185 people - thats not a joke, at all. And they certainly appear to respect his leadership. Very few people can boast these achievements.
But I just can't stand some comments. He can't provide updates because they're "heads down executing"? Thats not correct. Maybe he shouldn't give updates, as the SHAC's are much maligned as amateurish. Fine. But the notion he just doesn't have the time is misleading. No matter how busy anybody has a half hour. Also, the comments I absolute hate- "investors just can't see what we see" - just makes my skin crawl. Constantly walking the line, feeding into these long suffering longs' notion that there are items "under the surface". Such an OTC thing to do, as every knows everything material has to be announced. 10M in cash and 5M in A/P, and 4M in notes upcoming. He knows with certainty he has to raise more money, and soon, and he is asking investors to hold and use their imaginations for what they don't know while he plans necessary dilution. I don't like it.
Can I ask why you would think the valuation would be “much, much higher” if the company were private?
Revenue down from the same three month period last year (operating expenses doubled). I just don’t know how you can keep claiming this in the face of these results.
Correct Bioamber is no longer a player. It has had no employees for 2 years. It has furnished no financial reports (mandatory) for 2 years. It has been liquidated under bankruptcy protection and sat lifeless for 2 years. The “analysis firms” are using data prior to 2019, during which Bioamber existed, to make projections for 2020 and onward to try to make a profit. This has been proven to you on everyone of these reports including my debunking of the last one. And these reports make no mention of a second transaction, either. No mention of the emergence from ticker deletion after 2 years for the first time in stock market history. Again- that’s because the data was compiled prior to the bankruptcy.
Now, again, do you have ANY evidence of a mention of a second transaction that was NOT made during the hopeful period BEFORE the SISP failed, but rather AFTER the announcement of the liquidation?? Just one? Surely there must be a mention somewhere in 2 years for a transaction worth hundreds of millions??? I mean I can find dozens of mentions in the reports, in press releases etc for a 4.34M transaction, but you cannot find one for a much bigger transaction????????
The Forecast Period is 2019-2029. In other words, the data stops in 2018. Your turn- we are waiting for just one mention of a second transaction after the SISP failure.
Did I miss you providing a shred of 2nd transaction evidence post SISP failure?
The data is from 2015-2019, and the company clearly was operational during a chunk of that period before going away forever in 2018. So CLEARLY the existence of this report does not prove any second transaction keeping the company alive today.
I didn't say it was inaccurate. I said the data was not up to date with the failure of the recapitalization and liquidation of Bioamber. See the table of contents:
See the dates in common?
No, with this proven, AGAIN, can you PLEASE provide any evidence from the Monitor's reports or otherwise, dated AFTER the publicly reported failure of the SISP, that shows any notion of a "second transaction"?
The data is old. I promise you they do not have information about a "second transaction" that only they are allowed to know. They simply package information from a prior period, add some new forward looking analysis about the impact of COVID and put a more recent date on it, and then its a product that can be sold. Every time one of these is posted the data is found out to be old.
Now, the gentleman is still waiting for any evidence at all of a second transaction...
He's just asking for ANY proof whatsoever that could prove your "interpretation", that happened during or after the 6th Monitor Report which was a single, final transaction that closed and was followed by the closing of the bankruptcy. What since then has been any evidence of a second transaction? You must have several items that form your "interpretation", right?
That was an earlier report, updated by the actual transaction that occurred. And updated in specific detail. 2 years have passed. The CUSIP suspension has been addressed many times. You were told when it happened that nothing else would happen, and nothing has.
None of the shareholders here funded this business. They bought shares on the open market from then current shareholders.
I agree with your comment that they both know the risks. But honestly, when the stock goes down 50-70-90% who is at fault if not the company?
I don’t even know who he is and I know he will be paying 0.
I’ll note again that the quarterly “booming” “growth” is of a lesser quantum that settlement monies being paid to plaintiffs against this company.
This differentiation here between “investors” and “traders” should go away. It’s nonsense. You either hold a security or you don’t. If you do and it does not perform, it’s only normal to want to know why. In this case the share price totally collapsed.
Is it? The share price has essentially tanked since then. Can you get the guy back??
Sure, we know all the bidders. 12 or so, all listed in the 6th report. They also provided the signed agreement for the transaction. Looks like it’s still back to you to provide any evidence at all of a second transaction. Got anything?
I believe the gentleman was asking for any shred of evidence of a “second transaction”. No one is debating existence since what was reported by the Monitor was a liquidation leaving a debt ridden shell that cannot trade.