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.
When the Monitor said the Longs weren’t getting paid and the judges approved and secured creditors did not object, it means the Longs aren’t getting paid. And then later LCY said specifically the Longs weren’t getting paid for good measure.
You realize everything on that page comes from the monitor reports right? So really it’s do you believe the losing bidder over the Monitor reports, which included approval from the judges?
It is truly an opinion pulled out of nowhere.
That write up looked correct to me. Wikis policy is to change or remove items that can’t be verified or are contradicted by public info. It’s not infallible because it’s limited by the quality of its sources. But either way, there will be no correction to the wiki Bioamber page as it all came from the public reports often referenced here.
There was a buy out? But most here are bragging about the suspended shares they still own. Why or how could anyone believe this garbage?
The "documents" could not possibly be more overwhelmingly condemning of any ludicrous possibility of shareholders being paid.
It was a gamble prior to the restructuring attempt. It has not been a gamble since. There are no gambles in court supervised Monitor reporting for public companies.
Not possible. And insane.
Even if you humor the ludicrous impossibility of a share purchase, if a company bought shares in another, the purchase amount would not impact the income statement in the form of a deeper loss, it would hit the cash flow and balance sheet.
Understood and agreed.
It is unreal that the remaining waning resistance to acceptance is “in your face! It’s liquidated, suspended and voided, but not canceled!”
Subsequent to this quote, an orderly and publicly reported process was conducted to try to restructure the company. It was reported that the restructure attempt failed and all employees were let go/resigned. Then an orderly and publicly reported process was conducted to liquidate the company, and the results of that were reported. Then trading was suspended, the ticker deleted, the charter of the company voided.
There have been a handful of companies come back from SEC suspension, usually always after correcting a filing delay. Almost always those trading resumption’s are short lived anyway. Never had a company resumed trading after FiNRA suspension. It’s been explained why here many times by the same folks who’ve outlined how all these events- resignation, restructure attempt, liquidation, suspension/delisting and voiding- are completely consistent with the public Monitors reports. There is 0 indication anyway to be found that contradicts the reports or the event trajectory.
Who’s “they”? The “they” who would have to cancel the stock don’t work on, for, or on behalf of the company anymore. Another “they” - Finra, did what’s in its power to prevent harm, which is suspend it and delete the ticker forever. I’m not sure why permanent suspension and deletion, followed by charter voiding, is a badge of honor better than cancellation.
But what if the bankruptcy is closed and over and no restructuring has occurred?
Saying you get more confidence as the waning nonsensical theories get debunked, and predicted things like delisting, voiding, LCY's written confirmation that they're moved on, etc, is just intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.
In order to keep the dream alive you cannot commit to a date. So no one will give one. Nor any kind of details about the proposed transaction. Nor any proof whatsoever than anyone is working on it, for or on behalf of the company.
Is this confidence that the "second transaction" is happening on this date? Nothing will happen of course. So is there no second transaction when nothing happens by end of month?
This is just complete wreckless nonsense.
So in other words, the scope and intent of the CCAA included restructure. Too bad it failed and the CCAA is now closed. So there was never some weird liquidation within CCAA and then recap outside of it- which is generally what is being argued by the few remaining hopefuls.
Me too.
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever. Never has been.
The person who gave you that analogy bamboozled you.
The company doesn’t have anyone working for or on behalf of it to cancel said shares.
Bankruptcy is bankruptcy. You file for it because you believe you can establish the value of receiving relief, whether “voluntarily” while you’re still in reasonable operation, or (ideally not) after your bills are late and you’re out of cash. Bankruptcy relief is not granted if you are on a trajectory to remain in operation. Because then you’re asking a judge to help you cheat creditors.
Remember that when they filed they were hoping for a restructuring.
Did you think the judge was winking to shareholders with this comment, or simply promising they would approve the highest bid?
What you’re suggesting would constitute bankruptcy fraud. What’s insane is how obvious it would be. It’s one thing to try to hide money in a complicated maze of offshore accounts, it’s another for a parent company to request bankruptcy protection, allow its subsidiaries to be liquidated while it keeps assets for itself, and creditors to receive small recoveries before the debt is discharged and the parent lives on with its assets in tact. Its so illegal on an elementary level it’s impossible to consider anyone would even try it.
It has been evidenced to you that the A/R was collected and included in the final wind-down that paid off the Monitor and provided partial recovery to some creditors, and that the Monitor's mandate was to liquidate all of the companies. If there was chunks of valuable assets not to be liquidated, the stock would not have been trading in pennies after the restructuring failed.
So you take comfort that the shares in Bioaq that you bought are still shares in Bioaq. Doesn't bother you that everything reported is completely consistent with liquidation, including of course, that the Bioaq shares that you bought are still shares in Bioaq.
Question: if the company was bought, wouldnt the symbol you reference need to have been changed in favor of the purchaser?
By who? How much?
It all closed without objection. And the proof is as definitive as it is overwhelming.
Uh huh. What was the rest of the deal?
No. They have no clue. They just “think 4.34M wasn’t the whole deal”. Very sophisticated.
Pegging the probability of this happening is extremely, almost infinitely narrow. It cannot be less than zero, yet there is absolutely no chance it’s above zero. It’s 0.0000000000%, and technically I left out a lot of zeros.
What shareholders should be pissed off about is any notion of "new positive DD" as it is disingenuous and creates false hope.
Why ask a question to a third party prompted by someone who claims to have asked the question and received the answer? Cant that person give the answer? What does it say if they cannot? Why do all the "DD experts" scatter when confronted by this?
We have seen. 100% of the operating life of this company is in the past.
by who?
There was 55k short shares when this was delisted, for a total of $2750. This is because anyone savvy enough to short this would have closed their position at $.01 after the restructure failed. At $.01, there was literally almost no remaining upside to shorting- any short position had nearly maxed that out.
The only thing that will be interesting are these behaviors. There is no badge of honor for waiting this out, whether you have kept the faith for these 6 odd months post complete and utter hopeless closure, or whether you maintain it for years to come as many do and will. Nothing will change the fact that for the last 6 months and for an indefinite period into the future, no one is working on, for or on behalf of this completely liquidated and abandoned, delisted and voided shell. Old and debunked "inconsistencies" will continue to be provided again and again like they are new pieces of rejoiceful "DD", PR's from the new operation will be touted, and new dates into the future will be pointed to, but again, there is absolutely nothing happening.
Explaining the past is a lot easier than predicting the future. So yeah, I got this one covered now. That part is easy. Who knows if I could have picked the right side 3 years ago when things were up in the air.
I am not sure the nuance you are getting at with "voluntary bankruptcy". All it really means is they sought protection prior to getting to a point where they cannot pay bills and it gets really messy. It certainly does not mean that they were a solvent going concern with prospects going forward. If that were the case, bankruptcy protection would not be granted.
The company was liquidated and for all intents and purposes is "dead". But technically it still exists on paper as a shell without any assets or any employees to file windup paperwork. I can see this aspect here has caused a lot of confusion and given false hope, unfortunately.
Now, trader59 has just posted proof that the A/R has been collected. Why go back to it in the face of such definitive evidence?
Creditors are stiffed, and have already written off the remainder of their positions.
Why are you posting a salesy except of a bid as better evidence than Monitor reports as to the fate of the company? The gist of your excerpt is, sell us the assets, we think we can make a better go of using the assets to make a profit than you did going bankrupt, and further, while we do that as a new going concern, the remaining crumbs to you can be increased because we will collect such A/R and dispose such assets in a non-distressed scenario. This ultimately wasn't believed by the Monitor, nor the secured creditors, as they rejected this.