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.
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.
I think it is a reference to a legal letter sent to PWC's reps on behalf of GFive, wherein GFive does allege that they were told via phone that the winning bid included a share purchase. It is the one time in this entire ordeal where direct contradictory language is used in writing to support a share purchase. However, I think its pretty clear it was an allegation made by the losing bidder in hopes of forcing PWC back to the table after they failed to up their bid to win, and is easily trumped by the subsequent mountain of clear documentation made public by PWC and approved by the court, including the additional documents such as the tenth report which was basically done to make triple sure no one was still expecting a buyout.
So your opinion is not that LCY purchased the shares (indicated by the "affirming", "upfront", "the Visolis transaction" posts), good as they have stated flatly that they did not.
But rather, you now believe that a number of smaller, private investors who invested in a prior offering, may have been convinced to come in at the same price in a later offering during the suspension? Why do those private investors get so much more information than the rest of the public?
I am asking why would anyone continue to perpetrate the illogical notion that creditors did not complain because they had knowledge of a payout, when that would require belief that they could have such knowledge, and public investors would not be afforded such knowledge, all the way until the cessation of trading for the security?
Simple question. 9th attempt to get an answer.
Possible ideas for an answer:
A) there are no rules for dissemination of information in public securities. Anything goes.
B) you believe the rules were broken and fraud was committed but that’s not your problem
C) you don’t know but you don’t want to contemplate this as it eliminates any hope of a payout
You’ve generally been going with C. Is that your final answer?
It’s kinda crazy. There is a belief that shares will be reinstated (or something) due to an aggregate of clues and hints that can all be explained. But it’s impossible to drill down on those hints and clues because no one wants them to be properly explained. Anything to punt to another day, despite there being no hope whatsoever.
It has not been answered, as that would eliminate gibberish like this:
First off I never said that they never said that. WHAT I SAID was that they didn’t complain about $4.3 being everything . Thanks to that link we now know they also DID complain As UNNECESSARY to keep the CCAA going . They most likely felt that way due to the ensuing Aspect (that of course didn’t need to be discussed lol) . ENSUING means AFTER or AS A RESULT OF
Once again, I am asking why would anyone continue to perpetrate the illogical notion that creditors did not complain because they had knowledge of a payout, when that would require belief that they could have such knowledge, and public investors would not be afforded such knowledge, all the way until the cessation of trading for the security?
Allegedly only 4.3M? Wheee is there any indication otherwise?
And there is this (7th attempt):
If you are suggesting the creditors did not complain because they were given the secret of an additional payout in 2018, and public investors were not provided the opportunity to weigh this information, prior to the cessation of trading in this security in 2019, you are out of your mind.
6th attempt
If you are suggesting the creditors did not complain because they were given the secret of an additional payout in 2018, and public investors were not provided the opportunity to weigh this information, prior to the cessation of trading in this security in 2019, you are out of your mind.
Nope 4th attempt to get thoughts on the ludicrous idea that secured creditors didn't object to the proceedings because they were informed of a secret deal that public investors were not afforded knowledge of before the stock stopped trading. I suppose this is the 5th attempt. Your goal will be to exit the exchange with a stay of execution, of course, but my hope is we can eliminate this as a possibility because it is so offensive to logic.
4th time’s a charm?
If you are suggesting the creditors did not complain because they were given the secret of an additional payout in 2018, and public investors were not provided the opportunity to weigh this information, prior to the cessation of trading in this security in 2019, you are out of your mind.
I'd avoid the insults while getting logically crucified here. I'd just avoid entirely. Bad look.
I wouldn't call it a theory, or its certainly not one I'm trying to factually perpetrate. Happy to call it an assumption. I would complain if I were them and I lost 100% of a prior receivable. Maybe they don't mind, or maybe they had already written it off.
You're up:
If you are suggesting the creditors did not complain because they were given the secret of an additional payout in 2018, and public investors were not provided the opportunity to weigh this information, prior to the cessation of trading in this security in 2019, you are out of your mind.
This may need to be the point where you "don't read" my post, haha. Eject!!
Oh, well of course:
who - Visolis and LCY
what - purchased the assets of former Bioaq for $4.34M
when - around September of 2018
how - the acquiring parties formed a JV and together made a bid that was ultimately accepted by the Monitor and approved by the court
why - a great opportunity for the JV parties to get a head start on their own ambitions that they are now pursuing
You're up:
If you are suggesting the creditors did not complain because they were given the secret of an additional payout in 2018, and public investors were not provided the opportunity to weigh this information, prior to the cessation of trading in this security in 2019, you are out of your mind.
It has to exist to exist, you can't talk a half baked opinion consistent with nothing into existence.
If you are suggesting the creditors did not complain because they were given the secret of an additional payout in 2018, and public investors were not provided the opportunity to weigh this information, prior to the cessation of trading in this security in 2019, you are out of your mind.
I’m gonna guess they complained quite a bit given the outcome. But that’s different than launching a formal complaint or requesting an injunction. I mean we’ve all seen all the bids at this point, what would they have wanted the Monitor to otherwise do?
whats up is I'm helping the last few get through their grief stages.
BTW the next step after denial is anger...
I was asking for your opinion of what the details were.
There was a clear theory, I thought, about LCY being the buyer as a lot of the legalese you mentioned - "affirming", "The Visolis", "Upfront Payment" seemed constructed to paint that picture. That Visolis made a public deal and LCY was waiting to announce their "portion". That is until LCY tacitly stated they didn't do that.
So it seems it comes down to the belief that 4.3M wasn't enough, and is as simple as that. Its not enough and so someone else must have done something- theres just no evidence of that yet.
One question that begs: in your mind, did the stated deal and your "theorized" deal happen at the same time, or is the new deal not yet done? I assume it would have had to have already happened, as it would explain why someone would be willing to accept the stated deal that you say is clearly too low. Doesn't that mean it would have had to be offered to shareholders by now for approval?