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 only difference remaining is when to accept.
So they are to be believed when they allegedly told GFive the offer involved the shares, but when they subsequently and repeatedly and then annoyingly stated the bids did not, closed the highest deal for the assets, documented it, and then left, they are not to be believed?
How does one know when to believe them?
Why would information in earlier Monitor reports be believed when that information was modified and superseded by later reports as the situation evolved? Why would you believe the Monitor at all on the notion of qualified bids if you do not believe the Monitor on its final report of the sale? Is the Monitor more believable when it is writing about qualified bids than it is writing about the actual bids, the terms of the sale and the ultimate closing?
Why would information in earlier Monitor reports be believed when that information was modified and superseded by later reports as the situation evolved? Why would you believe the Monitor at all on the notion of qualified bids if you do not believe the Monitor on its final report of the sale? Is the Monitor more trustworthy and believable when it is writing about qualified bids than it is writing about the actual bids, the terms of the sale and the ultimate closing?
Its tricky when I think about it.
I think there are a handful of bad characters who perpetrated a movement with some knowledge of where it would lead. A 600% increase in share price AFTER the 6th and 10th Monitors reports is unreal.
I think there are some folks who didn't give it a lot of thought but just saw some materials and got sucked in. They are ones who got the short end here.
And I think there are some in the middle, who thought about it and made a decision, but their problem is they refused to rethink that decision when overwhelming evidence began pouring in against it. Those are the folks I've been trying to figure out. Its like their identity is tied up with their ability to select, or not, a winner disguised amongst all the "hints" and "clues".
I suspect the charter revocation will change nothing amongst those last 2 groups. The hopeful will still hope, and those in denial will continue to deny because of what it would mean to admit a poor decision.
I would be surprised, however, if there was any meaningful pursuit of this involving the paying of additional money to lawyers.
I also don't understand what they think the idea that patents could still reside with the former co even means.
If you take the worlds biggest gulp and say you believe all of the Monitor reports are fabricated (LOL), the company did not sell its patents, it is still operating somehow and is paying to maintain its patents. How did they pay? How did a recapitalization happen without shareholder knowledge or approval? And who paid to recapitalize when LCY recently formally confirmed they did not?
Oh yes now I understand and agree.
I don't think they are happy at all at losing their entire investment. Or else, to avoid speaking for them, I don't see how they could be.
Its a curiosity for sure. Bewildering is a good word.
Totally false to say there is as much shareholder interest and belief as before.
Also dishonest to say that the LCY lawyer letter debunking LCY investment and all those prior snippets, the land title transfer, and the time away from Monitor dismissal and closing with no word whatsoever hasn't had an impact on confidence, regardless of if the confidence level still sits above a level of continued belief.
It will never be fully shut down due to entrenchment and the difficulty of proving a negative. The latest I've heard are:
1) The weakest form of argument is asserting you are right because you know exactly what happened and I don't but I still believe, and)
2) Aside from all my disproven thoughts about what might have happened, I have others but I'm not gonna tell you.
Cannot prove a negative, so this will persist, maybe forever.
Looks like you've identified and presented another transactionS contemplated by virtue of the APA, killing off yet another snippet of nothing.
Well, here were the offers presented by the Monitor (and of course the Monitor has no ability to not report offers, particularly higher offers):
1. Visolis/LCY - 4.34M
2. GFive - 3.5M CAD + 1-2M CAD potential earnout
3. International Processing Plant - 2.11M CAD
4. Arzeda - Lab Equipment - 139K, IP - 126K
5. Cargil - 325K
6. Corporate Assets Inc - 2.12M CAD
7. GMI Inc - 70K
8. Gordon Brothers - 335K
9. Infinity Assets Solutions - Auction process 80/20 split with 1.5M guarantee
10. iSurtec - 1.236M
11. - Lygos - 150K
So, which of these options was in the "best interests of all stakeholders" to accept?
More than half of these offers would provide insufficient cash to even pay the Monitor for its services in liquidating this business, which would have created a giant mess and "hardship" beyond what was necessary because their were bids that could cover such expenses.
Please also note, that there was a $335K down payment on the 4.34M, and the 4.34M was NOT a down payment. There are not alternative interpretations.
Most certainly you don't have to tell me anything. But the idea you have declined to share a real proposed story for what could have went down consistent with your belief of share safety is not correct, as you clearly, repeatedly, argued a narrative of LCY Affirming The Visolis Transaction by extending sums beyond the Upfront Purchase Price. Now that that has confirmed to not have happened.
But my other question - do you think the Monitor does not have an obligation to present a clear picture or do you think they do and they just didn't do that here?
You should be rooting that this is not correct. If the company still had the patents it would mean the equity had not sold prior to the dismissal of everyone working for or on behalf of it.
Do you believe the Monitor is not bound by a duty to communicate a clear result not subject to any interpretation, or that they are but they failed to do so?
Sorta my point. Someone can claim a different opinion, they can claim whatever they want, but is that realistic and intellectually honest given the absolute necessity for that not to be legitimately possible.
That's why they had courts supervise an expensive Monitor to carefully and decisively report the result. That process is absolutely sacrosanct for functioning markets. None of these details would ever be open to interpretation, as that would be directly in violation of the assignment.
If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
You have a belief in search of a theory, and nothing fits.
Hello good sir.
LSS doesn't know why you would post this and thought I should ask you.
The waning argument for share safety after the devastation of the Monitor's reports has been that the court approved the asset sale with knowledge of an additional share purchase or swap deal that was happening more or less concurrently, or at least in concert with (so as to be negotiated and transacted by the same Monitor as there are no board or employees remaining) the asset sale. Posting items purported to refute the asset sale and point to the continued business operations of the company completely eliminates the possibility that such a share purchase happened with the assistance of the courts and Monitor, and since they are now gone, prove that such a sale can never happen.
So what's the point of perpetrating the notion that sold patents stlll reside with the company?
Oh interesting. So you believe a company can be bought with no-one working for or on behalf of it?
Some gibberish to work through there.
Setting aside the clear evidence that the patents were sold- If they still own the patents then they weren’t bought as of today. And there is no personnel, board or Monitor now. So, how will they be bought?
What’s your opinion on why patent documents get shared with no further thoughts when the hope here has been a secret transaction involving a stock purchase or swap? Why does the company name on a patent help evidence a transaction where the company name wouldn’t still be on the patent?
But there are no plausible answers, leaving the alternative, where there are answers to everything.
So BioAmber wasn’t liquidated? Or it was liquidated and then certain assets like these were given back and the company was recapitalized? Why? By who?
Where does it say that? Who is working on it?
When the charter is revoked will this be over?
No, I asked what will be different later. You keep taking hit after hit and just saying this will be determined later. Delisted- later. LCY didn't buy it- later. Monitor discharged- later. Then I also asked, who would you believe as the final voice on the matter if not the buyer of the assets, the courts and the Monitor? Does the charter revocation do it for you? That is but a formality, far less important of a moment here compared to the SISP failure, asset purchase transaction closing, Monitor dismissal and delisting. We are months removed from everyone going home and a year and a half removed from the deal closing. We are at "later". Has anyone indicated they are still working on this in any way to expect any new information other than closed/dismissed/delisted?
What would be different later? Everyone's gone home. Its been stated that the charter will get pulled but that isn't notification of anything. Its someone taking the garbage out. And your opinion won't be changed, you'll just state that the company had to evaporate in order to be folded into another. So I'll ask again- who's statement on the matter will you believe to be final if not the buyers of the assets, the courts and the Monitor?
You didn’t end any discussion and in fact were ended when I added the IRS as another authority in addition to the monitor, the 2 federal judges, and the winning bidder who are in firm, demonstrated agreement that shares are worthless no matter what lonely, unsupported opinion is put forth. Is there anyone you could hear this from that you would believe?
Reasonable point, the tax authority would only care to know if there was value/profit there. But as you know, the point, that you cannot and will not answer to (but you may try to find a typo or other “correction” to make) is that you can claim the loss with no objection, even in the face of a reduction in taxes payable.
And my response was that in the eyes of the US government, if you are holding you have have lost as of now. Creating a notion that you haven’t is only possible in your opinion, but it isn’t actually an option.
Not correct. If you took the loss on your 2019 taxes, the IRS would have absolutely zero problem with it, as in their world result has occurred. There are only a few waiting around for an additional result, but that does not mean the result is up in the air, and you cannot will the notion that the result is up in the air when it is not. No one is working on this, everyone involved in operating and liquidating the former company is moved on.
What could/should they have done better/differently?
Blind support has plagued shareholders here for a while.
People who work at and blindly support the company —> good. Support them no matter what, including huge price drops and incorrect predictions.
Everyone else, who must be responsible for the markets lack of understanding/appreciation —> bad. Avoid them and blame them all.
LCY wrote a "To Whom it May Concern" letter as a last ditch effort to dispel the notion that they are participating in another transaction with the liquidated firm. They literally cannot make it stop.
There was only one defined transaction. Within it several agreements would have to be made to effect the terms therein. Unreal if you think officers of a court would tease a transformative transaction with no additional details and then allow public investors to not have the benefit of that information before the stock was taken down.
The details of all bids have been disclosed though. We know exactly what they were.
LCY was part of the winning bid. In a rare move they had to recently write a letter explaining there will be no additional money paid, to dispel exactly this notion.
So the drafter was thorough enough to stand up and say “I can’t sign off on this draft this without noting the additional country involved! I have ethical standards!” but they were OK not mentioning in any other way a transformative additional entire transaction??
Or more likely the “elsewhere” was catching other offshore loose ends such as domiciling for optimal tax advantage, international sales permissions, such as the one in Belgium we were told about at one point, etc.
Really hard to believe the country not identified of the three by name is the one driving and transforming and driving the deal and the document.
Why would I not acknowledge a letter we’ve all seen?
Yes most likely. Or aim to muddy the waters and seek some kind of “go away” consideration.
Ultimately they just went away as all they have is someone’s biased recollection of a conversation vs the clear, organized, definitive explanation of the outcome ultimately set forth and approved.