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.
The judge did NOT say she believed the contracts had any value. I believe it was clear she believed they had no value. She did acknowledge that there was a set of lawyers who were asserting that the contracts appeared to have substantial value. Now if there was anyone who agreed with them, they would have bid on the company so they could assume those contracts practically for free, but no one did. And, of course, it was the duty and obligation to report any and all bids, and we all have seen and quoted ad naseum from the 11 offers they received, with the top one being 4.34M.
And again, if the contracts were worth 100M, why did the company go bankrupt?
Then why liquidation?
Why would anyone be waiting? For what? They’ve been free to take their winnings for years.
If you shorted this stock you’ve already closed your position here with a max gain and reinvested or spent the winnings. Remember that only on this board is there anyone waiting on any additional events. In the real world this has been over for a long time.
This has been addressed many times. The judge was saying from the point of view that the plaintiffs the contracts had value. And the judge said that the court would not opine on whether it agreed or not. The point being it was irrelevant because the secured creditors did not remotely support pursuing.
The context in which the judge addressed this after after the bankruptcy was closed, due to a shareholder, like yourself in disbelief over the outcome. The truth is, DURING the bankruptcy, when the bidders could bid on and buy whatever they wanted, nobody wanted the contracts you are referencing.
Well they PAID for them because they were the highest bidder in the liquidation. But you’re saying they opted not to take them on this transaction because they thought it would be more fun to pay them more in royalties later?
The question was thoroughly answered. The company was liquidated, meaning definitionally it has no remaiNing technology of any value.
I don’t think the date I sent was high for the era is my point. I believe it was much more heavily traded at a time than it is now.
Did a very imperfect google search and the date 2/1/19 came up on Barchart.com. 3,059,000 share volume at .51 (pre-split), so around $1.5M traded, or 15X the number you reference below.
I am guessing there were heavier days also.
But isn’t it true that volume has decreased substantially from the peak? Does the trajectory of a young, as yet undiscovered company really apply?
I will never understand how you guys can say you believe that all of these hints and clues are permitted confidentially breaches while everyone responsible for reporting the outcome to the public is still bound.
I don’t think you can get credit for any “educated guess” with no clue who or how much other than you don’t believe the deal that was reported happened as reported. Especially with the only real entity ever postulated (KKR/LCY) bombed out with that lawyer letter. Now that I think of it- I don’t even think “guess” would be appropriate.
So, this is a great example of taking a bunch of crappy, debunked snippets and mashing them together in hopes that cumulatively there is something meaningful, but, in this case all that results is one mega-crappy, debunked nothing argument.
So I'm curious and have a few questions.
1. If all the A/R was collected how would someone be the collector of the A/R? shouldn't it be zero if the FACE VALUE of $14M dollars was collected?
Obviously this was proposed before the A/R was collected. It wasn't accepted by the way. So this reference in a "document" is not even operative. Thats right, what you are pasting does not apply to what happened here.
2. "This would not only allow the creditors to move on," referring to the quote above about it would no pay off the creditors, the document says the complete opposite or is it photo-shopped? Not to mention it would also assist in establishing a profitable model going forward. Does that implying that there is extra money after creditors?
Unlike the Monitor's reports where it is 100% clear with no room for interpretation that there was insufficient proceeds from the sale to repay creditors, this is a bid excerpt where they are referencing that creditors could "move on", i.e., not have to oversee the collection process.
3. How about the inventory and how it will be sold at increased values in a non distress sale scenario. Does that mean more than enough money for creditors?
I referenced this yesterday. A company taking over the assets would have ostensibly more clout to collect. Why? Because the company being liquidated was known to be being liquidated, and so someone owing the company money could either attempt to negotiate down what they owe, or simply not pay under no threat of pursuit by the bankrupt company. Saying this could mean more than enough creditors is not supported by anything and, again, is directly refuted by the reports, the Monitor, the judge, and of course, the buyer itself.
4. If you were purchasing assets of a company wouldn't you be the future operating company? I never knew documents talked in third person. So who will we be settling the A/R that hasn't been collected?
Yes, the company bidding to buy the assets would be the future operating company. At least thats what they were proposing in this section, which was not accepted, and does not actually apply.
Is far from the truth if you read the supporting documents.
I think only Monitor reports should be used as "supporting documents". Using bid sections that were not accepted and alleged conversations that were never memorialized is not a good look here.
P.S. Why do you think creditors did not complain about receiving less the the scrap value of the plant, 1/11th of the distressed liquidation price, and refused for a shareholder to pay out of their own pocket to try and get creditors more money?
Because they were 100% comfortable that they got as much as the market would bear.
Supposedly dead? There hasn’t been a peep from the company since 2018, and in fact it was delinquent on its taxes and filings and had its charter revoked. Surely if anyone had plans to keep it running “behind the scenes” that would not have been allowed to happen.
You’re not the arbiter of fact vs opinion. That’s why these things are overseen by a judge- to be sure everyone has the same information. When the judge confirms it’s over, it’s over.
Not at all. It was opinion through the sales process but opinion stopped when the APA closed and it became fact.
Opinion is now just a term used to keep the dream alive. But unfortunately it is not, and there is nothing you or I could say to change that. I find it intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Yes I tried to get a commitment that the secret deal would be revealed after the closing of the class action but unfortunately there was insufficient confidence in the “DD” to do so. Instead it will be “opinion” forever.
There it is. Strong collection effort given the circumstances.
Needless to say, the idea that A/R was stashed away in a related company not included in the liquidation that is meant to survive and somehow compensate shareholders in the liquidated company is completely, utterly and hopelessly not supported in any way.
Directly addressed the underlined words, those being that the company was anticipating $0 in uncollectible, or bad debt. This is what anyone would expect from a company aiming to sell a restructure plan and continue operations. My comment that they likely couldn’t collect it all when things shifted to a distressed/liquidation plan is utterly consistent.
The company failed, declared bankruptcy, attempted restructure and failed, was liquidated, suspended/deleted and then had its corporate charter revoked. How could echoing the same comments from the Monitor, court, Monitors lawyer and the buyer itself, that the company has been liquidated and rumors of additional deals are completely unfounded, be considered pushing a false narrative?
You’re still trying, huh?
Well the underlined text says while they were actively trying to sell their company as a going concern that they didn’t anticipate any bad debts. Seams reasonable. Also seems reasonable that that would change for the worse when restructure failed and liquidation began. Of course.
So no? I didn’t realize uncertainty was so high with all the great “DD” out there.
I am 100% certain nothing will happen after the settlement.
Compared to they redirected A/R attributable to these secured creditors somewhere else and have sat on it for a year and a half?
Go on record that this all happens within a reasonable period and triggered by the class action ending. I’m on record absolutely nothing will happen, and I’m 100% certain.
But you won’t, it’ll just be your “opinion” that the reveal will be kicked until later down the line.
They had no leverage to make anyone pay and they couldn’t wait because they were going out of business.
I'm sure they didn't collect 100% of 14M under the circumstances. But I'm sure they collected all that they could. The judge and secured creditors were watching.
The one attached to the shares. Rest assured any subsidiary or anything of any possible potential value was liquidated in the liquidation. Dismiss any temptation, as quickly as possible, to consider that someone hid something valuable in a company hoping the judges and secured creditors would miss it.
BioAmber has no employees or payroll capability.
But right around the corner (class action settling) NOTHING will happen, and you will pivot
Oh, and there is no further activity post CCAA.
The bankruptcy has closed. That is not a remote possibility.
Hahaha
So an unsecured creditor being added a year after the closing means what? That there was a second Bioamber and that one isn’t bankrupt? What?
But you also said that you win at “that point” that the class action frees you from the last legal proceeding. I mean I can tell you now with 100% confidence that you’ll be waiting forever for shares to be bought. PWC actually told you that in writing, unlike the alleged verbal comment you state below.
So at that point (when the class action is closed) it will have “played out” one way or another (I.e., it’s dead if there is no other news for weeks after)?
What?
Can you tell me what, in your mind, is driving up the price of Zoom to over 70B if it is not, or in fact is hindered by, its terrible CEO?
I don’t believe Tesla is overvalued at all. Nor does it follow that this one is undervalued. Clearly it’s your opinion that those things are true, which is fine and you’re entitled to that. But by definition the market disagrees and has valued them how they are.
The purest job of a CEO is to enhance shareholder value. That is done, literally, by driving the share price. Investors in this company will not be receiving more money, ever, on the basis that you personally think it’s undervalued. They will receive more money for their shares when the market deems those shares worth more money, if ever.
The share price has nothing to do with the CEO??
There is no more appropriate scorecard of a CEO's performance for a publicly traded company.
There is only one Bioamber family of companies, and they were all involved in the CCAA, and the result of the CCAA is final. There is no ability to circumvent creditors via inter-company shenanigans in the CCAA. That would be prototype bankruptcy fraud.
A focus on the unanswered question of what are you waiting for to determine when this has “played out” seems as on topic as possible relative to the final outcome of the shares here.
I wasn’t comparing the 2 companies.
I wonder why you feel that investors in this market who have been scouring for opportunities as recovery stocks have grown volatile and growth stock have likely topped out are simply not motivated enough (by money) or smart enough to “properly” reward this security by buying it up to reflect its more than 72B+ eventual value.
Any chance your premise is flawed?
I think Verb's only in its 6th or 7th year, but honestly the comment wasn't to compare the 2 or try to say one is good and the other is bad. It was just to say that I trust the market, and so even with the security breaches, Zoom has been delivering, and big time.