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.
Alternatively, check the SP when an announcement is made. This way you can gauge the financially motivated reaction from legions of highly incentivized professionals and non-professionals who have to instantly digest this information with their hard earned dollars at stake. Fairest system in the world.
There is absolutely no chance that the shareholders of Bioamber will receive another cent because the company cleverly retained a formula that wasn’t paid for in the liquidation. Absolutely no chance, total hopeless waste of time to consider. That would be bankruptcy fraud, and besides, there hasn’t been an employee there for more than a year. Key word here as always is “hopeless”.
Time has told.
The sale of materially all the assets of the company.
The Monitor got discharged after the deal was completed right?
The ending happened in sept of 2018.
I hope so. Just not here. That’s for sure.
The details of the restructuring emerged during the restructuring. It is now over.
Nice lil snippet. Hey maybe this means the stated deal approved in court didn’t happen?
The company was being liquidated. It was all for sale.
2nd request: do you acknowledge that a deposit was made on the 4.34M purchase price?
It is fact and not opinion that it does not mean “deposit” as it relates to the Bioamber liquidation. Because there was a stated deposit, and you can’t have a deposit on a deposit, right?
If he meant it means one thing in the context of the deal, then he is correct. Obviously there is no room for error when communicating the results of a public company transaction.
Question: will you acknowledge that a deposit was received in connection with the 4.34M purchase price?
That’s not what I said. Remember it is so critical that all hope be abandoned here.
In this instance UPFRONT meant 340k on signing, the rest on closing - all upfront. That’s what the agreement stated.
The crazy part is the idea that you can put a reference in an agreement to another agreement that doesn’t yet exist.
So in summary- you have uncancelled shares in a liquidated shell company.
There was a deposit made on the 4.3M. That was the upfront part. The 4.3M was final, as everyone knows.
Maybe it’ll come.
Yes, the “growth”.
Do you not remember the sheer volume of highly touted snippets that were completely debunked? The land registry, “affirms”, Visolis Transaction, etc? When will it be accepted that these will too?
What? Who cares what the shell or anyone else on behalf of the shell, does with its mailing address?
Why is the Monitors reported purchase agreement not accepted?
A snippet cannot “reveal” anything is the point. Yet you’re still scouring. Why?
There is no concept of “true value” is my point. There is only what you can buy/sell it for. I thought the uplist should have buried the bizarre notion of true value.
But the SP is the price you can buy it at. Anything else is an individual opinion. In your view, who determines true value since it’s not the SP?
Right.
“Just because there are PR's doesn't mean the SP will reflect the true value at that time.”
Who determines the “true value” if not the SP?
It’s not about liking or not liking any document.
It’s about thinking any activities are happening in secret that are only revealed in address changes and patent documents. It’s useless to consider them, it’s useless to look for them.
If you don’t like what the courts approve- find a snippet!!!!’
Again- seems you are saying that the market is wrong and you are right about the “true” value.
Man I hope this snippet didn’t inspire any hope. What’s the use?
So basically you’re saying that your evaluation of the company is disconnected from the market and that yours is correct?
Doesn’t the market have to agree with you for you to make money?
You can’t really lean on anything pwc says given the snippet trail to disprove them, right?
The buyer wanted to be able to resume use of the plant it bought from the seller. This rehashed snippet seems sufficiently debunked to me.
What do you know another snippet hunt for inconsistencies from what was approved in court.
Hmm. What would be a reason that growth in a company would not be immediately and linearly linked to growth in the SP?
Of course it is.
I mean there is absolutely no hope of any remaining value for shares in BioAmber. Personally I’m great!
If the price was currently 5.55 every single hedge fund on Wall Street would be shorting every share they could get their hands on obviously. But as you know (since it’s been stated here many times) there was almost no short position here when it closed out, simply because everyone who shorted had made their money and closed out their position at one cent.
Again- there is not a growth story here currently. Maybe that will change.
I get that followers here want growth and no resistance. What if that is just not in the cards? Just be mad at the world?
There isn’t really a growth story here. There is a really only a manufactured growth story that is tenuous.