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.
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.
The parent company has no money whatsoever. This has been stated many times in writing by the Monitor, by the judge, etc. You don't get to stick cash in a parent company, ask for bankruptcy protection, and stiff creditors. Ludicrous.
The docs have prevailed. There is lag between that and acceptance here of 18 months and counting.
Why wouldnt it still be alive? Getting liquidated doesn't kill a company. A company can wind down itself in accordance with its operating agreements, but in this case there is no longer a board or any employees. Now you're seeing some third parties like the state of incorporation and the exchanges removing rights of this now shell company.
It was collected, or rather, they collected as much as they could of it. They weren't bid on by most because the company generally elected to collect its own A/R and not pay fees on it.
If A/.R + inventory could take care of creditors that is what would have happened.
The owners of the future operating company is the group now operating the purchased assets.
The parent company is still alive and may always be. It can't trade, its charter is revoked, and 100% of its assets of any value have been liquidated.
No offers of share purchase were made. There was an offer that included royalties, but it included a risk because the acquiring company needed to raise substantial money to operate the assets to generate those royalties, and it was ultimately rejected in favor of more guaranteed cash.
Looks like it was decided that the 4.34M plus whatever the Monitor could collect of the A/R was deemed higher, or at least the expected value was higher, than selling the assets for less than 4.34M and giving up the 15% on the A/R.
All the purchased assets were listed and they were everything of realizable value from all the family of companies. As a failing company driven to bankruptcy protection in the first place, it was hemorrhaging cash, but it was able to cashflow itself from said A/R while it reached agreement to sell its assets. As stated here earlier today, 3.5M was paid to creditors before receipt of the 4.34M, then another 2.3M (everything left at the time net of Monitor and other professional fees) was paid as the final act before the Monitor was discharged.
4.34M was selected from the offers received of 4.34M, 3.5M CAD, 2.11M CAD, .135M, .325M, 2.12M CAD, .07M , .335M, 1.5M, .15M. Why would they protest? WHAT would they protest?
Their interest in the proceedings was likely drastically reduced once the restructuring failed, as there was no chance of full recovery, and likely only marginal recovery possible at that point.
They went bankrupt. Prior to completely running out of money they sought protection to run an organized process to transparently divvy up the remaining resources. Restructure failed so they turned to liquidation.
“final”
That’s what I’ve been saying.
Wait until you hear/read the organized, consistent, definitive, thorough ruling before deciding to engage in a waste of time exercise, is what is being communicated here.
Judges don't speak in "code" to the most "astute" shareholders.
It’s the judges job, literally, to do/approve what’s in the best interest of all stakeholders while complying with the law. Yes they certainly were, and have been trying ever since, to tell stakeholders something, but it doesn’t seem to be taking. There is no evidence whatsoever that accepting the stated deal did not satisfy that obligation.
For the thousandth time- taking the best offer was in the best interest of all stakeholders.
Or, did you think that was a “wink” from the judge asking you to disregard everything that was about to be presented and approved?
Give me a break. All this chatter about tiny explainable “inconsistencies” in the face of thorough, detailed, consistent damning evidence, if you had anything better, it’d happily be presented in the same fashion as the garbage currently supplied as “in your face” “DD”.
Future potential is projected from, among other things, current results.
What would be significantly crazier would be believing that creditors didn't speak up because they were aware of a secret transaction in bankruptcy that the investing public did not have a chance to weigh prior to the cessation of trading of the security.
Even believing such a thing is remotely possible would be crazier.
Why cling to items that you read as conflicting in earlier reports when later reports, including the unreacted APA approved by both judges, clear everything up as definitively as possible?
I don’t see the giant stretch qualification of CCAA in that statement. But in any event, all goes through the Monitor. The most basic of bankruptcy principles.
Pure facts were presented.
I’m asking you while I have your attention. How much, who, why was it secret?
No I don’t believe you. I don’t believe a discharged Monitor would confirm anything by phone that he can’t put in writing. And I don’t believe there is such a thing as a bankruptcy deal for a public company that can’t be put in writing. And I have absolutely no question or doubt whatsoever about the foregoing.
Phone calls don’t pass the burden of proof for this or any forum. Why don’t you submit the contents of the email(s) you were sent in this regard.
There is no material information not available to the public (or at least was available up until the time of deletion). There is no doubt about it.
If PWC has shared with you information on this “second transaction” I’m sure all would love to hear it. No one here has been able to offer any details other than debunked “hints” and “clues” with none of the basics- who bought it, for how much, etc.
But I do believe the facts. You want me to ask PWC if they didn’t present all the facts to the judge?
Are you asking me to hunt down a document from a disgruntled bidder that conflicts with what the Monitor reported and judges approved? Why would you be asking me to do that? Is the judges authority not final?
Someone else alleged he said that. He’s on record with 2 federal judges that he did not say that, and it’s in writing.