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.
Only if you also consider the “growth” to be immaterial as it is less than the settlement. Do you?
The settlement amount is greater than this quarters growth.
If settled, is by definition not frivolous.
Settlements are not reached for frivolous lawsuits, period. The very act of paying any makes it not frivolous. The calculus you are referring to holds, once you realize the plaintiffs have a case that will not go away (I.e. is not frivolous), you try to settle for some amount that approximates your cost to fight it off.
It appears you know by now that there is no more “until proven”. The bankruptcy is closed. There is not an additional bankruptcy. Saying you’re waiting does not create hope where there is none.
Has a deleted ticker ever been reinstated in a year ever in history??
We know the identity of the buyer, it’s public. And they said they aren’t paying any more.
It wasn’t frivolous since they settled. There is a whole spectrum of the potential damage of lawsuits. The frivolous ones have no chance and they are dismissed. The non frivolous ones have to be dealt with with some kind of settlement.
But how can it be tick tick with no known timer???
So tick tock...but you don’t know when....
I will have to look but I’m pretty sure. What about December since you’re confident? Nothing? Just wanna keep it going no matter what?
Didn’t you and I have a gentleman’s agreement that something would happen in July? Wanna take December? I am POSITIVE nothing will happen by then either. Or ever.
You’re 0 for 200!!! Right????
A complex restructure did occur. It is now over. And it was done in a way that left the shares in tact. Yes, these items are all clear. Completed 2 years ago.
Are you laughing at someone who’s not out 100% of their investment while being out 100% of yours? Hahahahaahhahahahaahahahahahaha. Hey at least you’ll get some folks who won’t even read your latest snippet of nothing and say it means it’s “settled” while you haven’t heard from the company in years. Hahahahahaahahahahaha
No not at all. I’m here to see what it will take for the remaining no hopers to admit it. I am already 100% certain of the outcome.
You were “shot in the head” when the SISP failed, then again when the APA was signed, then again when the courts approved, then again when the ticket was deleted. And now youre not satisfied it’s over when no ticker has EVER been reinstated a year after deletion? No employees for 2 years? I don’t get why you think you’re waiting.
Wow. You’re good.
There’s been no one working for any Bioamber company for more than 2 years.
And the whole risk factors section about only having one plant. Etc etc etc.
Turn em loose??
Settles what? I mean, it’s been settled for 2 years now. Was there anything new here in this recycled snippet hunt junk?
Sounds about right. The pwc fees were outlined in the last cash flow report.
I believe the Monitors reports. Especially the part on the next report that outlined the 12 or so bids received, including the winner at 4.34M. Why a more further, obscure analysis/snippet hunt given that? What’s the use?
There is no clock. That case will be over and you will deny you thought that would result in anything and will need to latch onto a new milestone.
There is no continuing story of any Bioamber company. Hence the deletion of the ticker. Their rosy assumptions as they entered bankruptcy with the hope of emerging recapitalized are, quite obviously, trumped by the outcome stated by the Monitor and approved by the courts, I.e., liquidation very specifically of all 3 entities.
Shameful to inspire hope here. Truly.
You enter into bankruptcy protection when your realizable assets are less than your debts, and in a liquidation substantially so. With some 100M in debt this was always going to fetch something less than 10 or 12 million. Always. I’m not sure why the stated results are rejected when they are presented so clearly.
Again- there is no one “keeping the SP low”. While this may not be a large settlement, a settlement at all acknowledges a level of validity to the action brought by the plaintiff- and it can no longer be argued as frivolous. The management team knew this when they opted to take the settlement.
Isnt the share price way way down since his firing?
In other words, if the court didn’t approve the 4.34M transaction before it, then creditors would have gotten even less. Makes sense given the offer was the highest of all the bids that were, of course, required to be made public in the 6th report.
The only way I can think of that shareholders have been irreparably harmed greater than what has transpired (total loss of principal) would be continued false hope, however small, manufactured from snippets that add up to nothing or even less. Know anyone guilty of that?
If it was frivolous, there wouldn’t be a settlement of 640k. Not a lot I suppose, but it’s not immaterial, but it does substantiate the action brought by the plaintiffs. Surprising to me, but it is what it is.
Well, if my reading of the settlement hearing is correct, you would be right.
My reading of it is that the parties reached this Settlement and the court approved, and now participating shareholders are being called in to voice their approval (or not). Either way, the company’s participation or allowance of this would seem to negate any notion of a meritless case, no? BTW- I don’t know the case at all, but I have believed it to be meritless. Investors had all the tools to know what they were getting into.
I will confess I never thought much of this. But looks like it was settled for 640k. So doesn’t seem frivolous to me.
If someone offers you $5.55 for the whole lot, say yes before they even finish the sentence.
It isn't capable of "revealing" anything other than the terms of the class action settlement affecting shareholders in a specific cross section of investment dates prior to the liquidation.
For the items you reference you'd have to check the records of the bankruptcy that was terminated in 2019.
It is crucial that you resist any notion that the terms of a class action settlement affecting shareholders in a specific cross section of investment dates prior to the liquidation could possibly be a "hint" at anything that would be the domain of the bankruptcy, specifically because it was terminated in 2019.
Plenty of links to liquidation/suspension/deletion have been provided, which is plenty, if not overkill, to evidence the assertion being presented as fact.
Nope he’s right on. Btw I’ve seen them suspended before for the allowed 10 days for failure to file reports. Ever seen one suspended for a year and reinstated? Apologies in order? Not to me but for those you duped?
Why is it not assumed that they are using an aggressive PR strategy now, but they just have little to report?
You ever heard of a stock being suspended for a year then come back online?
No? That’s because it’s never happened.
The scenario I’ve been pointing out all has happened. I’m not the one waiting for a “new outcome”. So there is no towel to be thrown in.
I think they’ve thrown in the towel. Of course this may provoke a few responses that they have not. But all other evidence to the contrary at this point. It’s over.