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.
Whatever they’re doing, it’s working. Huge.
Haha, so it not an opinion that the final result of this closed liquidation is only an opinion?
This is an embarrassment.
Please tell me you aren't implying that LCY's lawyer took this unnecessary step to write a letter whose entire existence is to declare the shares worthless in response to exactly these types of rumors, while simultaneously planting a careful Easter egg that allows for the possibility that the letter means the opposite.
Fine, but I was refuting a post that said they were.
I guess he’s got the time and inclination to refute that he has answers but just not to provide the answers, haha.
I wonder if it’s because those “answers” were logically lambasted and proven hopeless previously resulting in nothing left but the “interpretation” program.
LCY had their lawyer write a letter to specifically refute any notion that they were providing one penny of compensation in any form to the Bioamber shareholders.
An exceptional liquidation is still a liquidation right?
I mean is an exceptional death one in which the person survives?
Is an exceptional loss one in which the team actually wins?
Why is that one word, whose meaning is never clarified and could have been referring to the color of ink used to sign the documents, seen as something that could overrule the comprehensive intent of the rest of the documebt(s)?
There is nothing in the monitors reports that substantiate any scenario other than liquidation.
The market value of the plant was 4.34M as that was the high bid out of a lot of bidders. Book value may have been a lot higher. That’s a liquidation unfortunately.
You have to decide if you believe the Monitor reports or not. You can’t pick the items in the reports that you believe and then the items in the reports that you do not believe. You can’t quote (or point to) a section in the report and claim that is evidence of royalties but then say that overrules the cash flow section that does not contemplate any future royalties or the section that states the secured creditors will continue to be impaired and the shareholders will get nothing.
Who will accept the royalties? There is no one working for the company to bill for or calculate (or audit the calculation of) royalties.
This idea that 12 companies bid on everything available but the high bidder left the “recipe” on the table to enrich shareholders later is insane, and of course, flies in the face of declaring bankruptcy in the first place.
I actually can agree with this. In a lawless world where rules are not enforceable or do not exist and contracts do not matter, it may be possible for shares here to have some value.
If the company had any expectation of future royalties being payable 1) it may not have needed to go bankrupt in the first place 2) those cash flow would have been reflected in the monitors cash flow reports and secured creditors recover estimates and 3) it would not have parted with every single employee so that they would have resources to bill and collect such royalties.
What about the whole restructure (fail)/Board and employee resignation/restructure (liquidation-closed)/judge approval/monitor dismissal/suspension/deletion/revokation/LCY lawyer letter thing?
If there was anything of remaining value other than the purchased assets they would have been picked up. Anyway, LCY was tired of the inquiries and didn’t want anyone to guess so they had their lawyer write a letter explaining the amounts expended and agreed already were final.
They bought everything they wanted from the company and promised shareholders in a letter from their lawyer that there (obviously) were no plans or need to pay any more.
Stole the assets? They were the high bidder in a heavily reported, court overseen auction.
The Monitors reports could not have been more definitive about shareholders getting nothing. Check out the 10th most exception report.
Last time there was quite a run up before the pricing, so that could happen here. But the offering price will certainly be a substantial discount from the then trading price. That’s why I have taken issue with recent comments about a strong performing year in 2020- this offering just seems to make that very unlikely.
It’s your prerogative to have faith in management to navigate, it’s an opinion no worse than my own.
I do not, though, take it as a given that anything has to change. Not about the company’s performance or the markets perception of it. It may, but I think it’s dangerous, especially if the belief is that it’s the markets error that is bound to be corrected.
I really don’t like the notion of “behind the scenes” in evaluating a stock, but i accept that the company has made moves. The market knows about them and hasn’t been impressed, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be successful.
But I was really thinking about the 2020 part. There is a dilutive offering coming up, and the SP will be important for that. And with the SP implications of completing that offering and with 2 more quarterly report opportunities, I personally find it hard to see accretive value in the SP within 2020 itself (“2020 is your year”).
Honest question: with knowledge of recent and upcoming financials and follow on offering, do you think this declaration that 2020 was/is the year of this company’s shareholders was made in good faith?
Great at least we’re talking about relevant docs now. A document that definitionally preserves the existence of (worthless) equity while at the same time rendering it absolutely worthless by virtue of the liquidation, so it’s devastating to your cause, but at least it’s not pointing out remnant entries on patent sites, that stuff is embarassing.
Of course they worded the APA so as to stay from the equity, as the buyer wanted nothing to do with it. BTW- the buyer also took an exceptional step in this regard and actually wrote a “to whom it may concern” letter declaring same.
What part of my comment doesn’t make sense?
Just have to use some common sense here. Do you think its more likely that this is a report with old "research" (which a simple good search will reveal this research has been packaged up several times for sale), or that the author of the report is the first to break non-public information that the suspended/delisted company has re-emerged?
Just unreal.
This "research" has been packaged and re-dated and offered by several sources that I could find. The notion that it could trump the crystal clear reported, refuted, re-confirmed with a mega-phone, trajectory of restructure (fail), restructure (liquidation- closed), suspension, deletion, revocation, has to be witnessed to be believed.
You’re predicting the SP to be much higher than $25 by end of year?
Definitely interesting to see when, if ever, you finally admit this has already played out.
I don't think is a totally fair answer.
It dismisses a question that comes from truth and is not flattering (i.e., they don't want to be confronted on some of the instances of failure to deliver and issue new benchmarks on which to be held accountable later), and tries to do so with a flattering kind of remark (i.e., they've "graduated" to NASDAQ).
I'm not going to say NASDAQ was a failure. It was neutral. It hurt the valuation but unrelated to the act of uplisting itself. They have access to deeper capital pools but are worth 32M, making it hard to believe that quality of investors was a limiting factor.
Certainly fair to think numbers will likely be lower than they would have been but for Covid.
So you feel the current price is a reflection mostly of macro conditions?
It’s not that those aren’t a factor but this company has been missing projections for a few years now.
Well done.
PWC begged everyone on their 10th report which could be retitled “whatever you do, don’t believe the rumors that shares could have any kind of value”.
Unreal that there could be any kind of hope here.
Sorry to say, but this company recently announced a dilutive offering, which if executed will likely lower the SP. So that and recent disappointing quarterly reports have caused the SP to drift while the market at large has recovered a lot of value.
What is your threshold for proving these items to be inaccurate? The company is liquidated and no one has heard from it in years. Its ticker is deleted and charter revoked.
Why is it that the "stakeholder" comment is believed and nothing else in the Monitor's report?
Take a look at this company. Sent to CCAA for restructure, 6 months later its liquidated. Stopped trading in October having lost 99.6% of its market cap, yet still traded up until trading stopped, and I am sure it still shows in the remaining shareholder accounts, despite that its liquidated with no hope for equity recovery. Sound familiar? Is anyone expecting a secret transaction to be announced there?
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/04/23/2020789/0/en/Bellatrix-Announces-Sale-Transaction-in-Connection-with-its-Strategic-Process.html
Not an update. It’s a reminder. Updates are long over here.
It refutes the notion that the L&S does better DD than most. Empirically, at least here, they do not.
The issue is the “always positive” mentality. It is a blinder.
The L&S held through a a dilutive offering resulting it a huge loss of value that was not only predicted, it was guaranteed.
Of course not. I’m pointing out how these items that keep the company’s name on file, ostensibly to prove it is still “active”, actually further prove and solidify it has not sold.
This poster STRONGLY disagrees with you that the company was sold. Can’t be previously sold and still active, of course.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156258682