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.
Yes a lawyer for the buyer is a better source, given OSB isn't "ruling" on anything. Its just a source for snippet discrepancy that have been searched for for months even though by definition anything found would be illegally signaling a transaction supposedly under strict confidentiality protocols.
The lawyer named the transaction the way he did specifically to rebuke the notion that there is another half of a transaction or a second transaction or whatever the hogwash of the day was.
January 31, 2020
"The LCY Transaction has been completed almost two (2) years ago. The Monitor has been released from its duties, through an order of the Court."
- LCY begging for acceptance
PWC is discharged, thats what the furnished certificate means.
Well, the APA was signed, judge approved, Monitor discharged, right? But, in your opinion, another deal awaits announcement but was protected by confidentiality, right?
So what is the point of looking for snippets, or ANYTHING that proves a second deal that is PROTECTED BY CONFIDENTIALITY? If it is truly confidential, there would be no hints, so why the constant snippet search?
Ah more snippets? What’s the use?
Uh huh
Agree
Nobody cares about you selling. Its not even possible. Thats just an OTC myth to go with the others- you know, short sellers, market maker manipulation, paid bashers, etc.
Sounds right to me. LCY through a JV owns and operates a plant in Sarnia. Or you’re saying they broke the “confidentiality agreement” via a domain registry?
Yes I know. It did. Why look for snippets?
Very good. Repeating it should help.
The lawyer who drafted this was happy to use a solid form APA complete with a provision that this agreement is the only one, unless there was an earlier confidentiality agreement or NDA, which would be typical. In other words, there is no other transactions other than what is presented in these pages of the APA (or CA). This paragraph expressly denies the existent of any other agreement between the parties.
I ask again- what’s the use?
What’s the use?
I’m sure you know that a boilerplate non-specific reference near the back of the APA does not in any way point to an additional transaction not in any way mentioned in the document, right?
Dont shoot the messenger. I am one guy with one alias who had nothing to do with this.
Snippets? Ah man what’s the use?
You could call the number on there and ask for either of those employees?
Give up your shares? How?
That’s impossible. I don’t believe it.
You can’t. It is not possible to read the below and believe there is a “second part”.
This isn’t a deal. It’s a bid. The deal is the APA, publicly unredacted on the PWC website.
Again I ask on the snippet hunting- what’s the use?
It’s sort of a start-up product from a combination of 2 non-start-up companies, I guess.
**or the LCY Transaction, per LCY
"chief amongst the secured creditors who have suffered important losses, under no circumstances could it ever be argued that LCY should in any way be responsible for this disappointment."
"LCY has been informed that some shareholders of the BA Group (defined as all 3, of course) have reached out to LCY's shareholders to seek compensation. Obviously, given the above, this is not something that may be contemplated."
-LCY
***"The Purchased Assets comprise of all the rights and interests of the Company in and to the Books and Records, the Owned Real Property, the Owned Movable Property, and the Owned Intellectual Property, as defined in the APA."
- PWC
Or, in the alternative, you could believe what the rest of the world believes (outside of a tiny few in this remote corner of the internet), that when the Monitor told you this was done, the court approved, and everyone went home, that they actually meant it. And that that is why you have heard nothing for 2 years, as opposed to a conspiracy of only "in the know" individuals "behind the scenes" illegally conducting business and cruelly not telling you about it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA. Good stuff.
There are no more steps though. The Monitor has been discharged.
It was bankrupt and worthless far before it got yanked. That’s why it was only worth a few million dollars is lottery tickets for those that unfortunately got duped here. There was almost no short interest at the time trading stopped forever.
Let’s say nothing happens by year end. What then?
I’m interested now because I am absolutely positive nothing will happen by year end and there will still be folks here saying the shares are safe because they are not canceled.
So the use of CCAA to get debtor protection and then announce another deal 2 years later is common CCAA practice? No? Does it happen some of the time? No? Has it literally ever happened? No? Then why are you purporting this perversion as though understanding of CCAA would solve it?
Or anywhere else- according to LCY. Also important.
But all the (desired) IP was included in the sale.
And the Monitor was very clear that after all of its work with the company, the secured creditors were significantly impaired.
Its a showstopper for the notion that shares are cancelled, but not for shares are worthless, as thats literally what you've been told by the Monitor, the judges, FINRA, the state of Delaware, the buyer, the buyer's lawyer, etc.
There is only the Monitors reports. And the Monitor has been discharged. All over.
Patent reports, generic reports for sale, etc are not DD, especially if they conflict with the only think that matters- again- the Monitor reports. And those are completed.
There is no DD anymore and has not been for about 2 years.
I think there’s a chance I’ve caused undo hope. Let me be clear: you will never see the Visolis Transaction next to the LCY Transaction in the same document. Because there is only one transaction that has or ever will occur here. However, as we’ve seen, some have chosen different naming nomenclature in how they describe the transaction. But there is only one.
Redundant.
I am certain that you are aware of all the documents referring to The Visolis Transaction aka The LCY Transaction including those in the Monitors reports and in the LCY attorney letter.
Where is the LCY Transaction
It was set forth in intense detail in the Monitors Reports and elsewhere. Note- it was called The Visolis Transaction.
What is the LCY Transaction,
The purchase of the assets of Bioamber by a JV involving LCY and Visolis
How could there be an LCY Transaction if there was only one transaction and that was the Visolis Transaction,
The LCY Transaction is synonymous with the Visolis Transaction depending on which document you read. Don't worry, its very clear in the context of both and all documents.
Who submitted the LCY Transaction, and When will the details of the LCY Transaction be made public?
See above.[/I]
There was a transaction involving LCY. It was called The Visolis Transaction by the Monitor and The LCY Transaction by LCY's attorney in different documents.
Well survival is relative. It got liquidated, so it doesn't have anything of value.
If you are indicating you don't buy the result they reported in CCAA because CCAA affords companies the ability to defraud the investing public in favor of savvy internet sleuths, well, you are mistaken.
Ugh
These items have been posted ad naseum.
The Visolis Transaction was referred to many times once the JV was selected as the winning bidder around Monitor Report 5.
The LCY Transaction was defined in a letter from LCY's attorney asking shareholders to please give up.
When proving a point fails, hey its just my opinion man.
The board was not around when the deal closed. You can't wind down a company mid-liquidation.
Where do you guys get this crap?
The purpose of the CCAA was to restructure the company in the best way possible with an eye toward continue local employment. That is what happened here. No, there wasnt a public deal and a private deal enacted to take value from the market at large and redistribute it to a team of sophisticated internet sleuths, but it was exceptional in that it began as a recap and evolved into a liquidation that will allow the assets to be assumed by a well capitalized group that will utilize the local assets.
For any other transaction to include additional consideration (i.e., terms beyond those presented in the defined transaction and its supporting transactions) it would have needed to have been defined in the document. Was there any other transaction defined in the document?