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.
I'm sure it will be, haha. It is now.
It will definitely be interesting to see when, if ever, you admit this had already played out.
You should check it out since it takes opinion out of it. Unless of course, you're not interested in something that eliminates opinion?
Either way, looking forward to your articulation of what happened, given you don't have trouble with it.
Great! I look forward to it. Mine was awful- far too many logical impossibilities.
In his opinion!!!!
The MRO thing can be safely dropped. That would require the Purchase Price for the assets to be retained by the company and put toward MRO. Instead, the funds were allocated and paid to the secured creditors, and it has been definitively documented as such. There is no possible way to legitimately say that the Purchase Price was spent on plant maintenance.
You are having trouble articulating a coherent theory of what has actually happened tying in all these oddities so I will give it a try.
I will preface this by saying it is hopeless. There is no way to actually construct a viable theory for share value, which is why no one has.
As I think of it, LCY must be the "buyer". Yes, I know they recently said they didn't, but as this is hopeless I will start with them anyway. There is no other way to incorporate the only possible source of value in this made up scenario, the NOLs.
The assets sold to the JV in the first transaction referred to in some documents as The Visolis Transaction (in another as The LCY Transaction, but whatever) for an Upfront Purchase Price (have to disregard the 10% paid deposit as it makes a second deposit kinda preposterous) of 4.3M. This happened inside the CCAA.
Knowing that the second transaction was going to happen (and in fact consummating it without telling shareholders and placing the terms "under seal"), LCY advanced some sums in order to pay a non-existent KERP charge to maintain a baseline of expertise only to fire everyone before actually taking over the plant under its own name.
The CUSIP is suspended and the ticker deleted while they prepare documentation for the second transaction which will reinstate the CUSIP under a new ticker (LOL- this is insane).
Then, in a pre-planned second transaction approved while the company still had a board, ostensibly to be referred to as The LCY Transaction, LCY makes an additional payment via cash or stock to acquire the outstanding shares. One thing I cannot solve for is why this would need to be secret and never referred to formally but only hinted at. This happened outside of the CCAA, but inside the US portion, a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding. One problem here is shareholders would have to approve and this was never proposed to them. Maybe it will be proposed in the future? But then this wasn't pre-planned. I don't know. Like I said, this is hopeless.
So, how'd I do?
Another problem, of course, is this CCAA/Chapter 15 business is total nonsense as the construct of Chapter 15 is to promote cross-border cooperation. In other words, the result of the CCAA IS the result of the Chapter 15. As such, they are both closed and the Monitor dismissed. The statement that the CUSIP is suspended and the ticker deleted due to Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Liquidation couldn't be more of a statement of finality here.
If you claim there is a scenario (who/when/why/how) that played out alongside the stated transaction but you do not lay out those basics, that’s what I am calling a mystery.
It will be interesting to see when you admit this had already played out.
So you send me to a site that shows LCY/Visolis bought the assets for 4.34M. If there is any MRO contemplated, definitionally it is on the party of the new owner, no? There is no possible way to interpret it as 4.34M paid to Bioamber for MRO to keep the operation running on its own, right?
Yeah I do. We all do, or should. It’s closed, with all terms disclosed and the Monitor released.
Thank you for providing this. It does link the letters "MRO" to the transaction.
However, "Distribution/MRO" refers to the fact that it was a liquidation payment where the proceeds were DISTRIBUTED to the secured creditors.
It also lists the Enterprise Value as 4.34M by the way.
Wasn't it just debunked as a footnote regarding sealed documents eventually superseded by the actual documents in the 6th report?
Why is the exculpatory evidence here always a mystery?
A rebuttal to what? There is no theory on the table currently for who saved value for shares here. If there was I’d be happy to provide a rebuttal.
Haha what’s compelling about it?
Upfront, and total. With a 10% deposit paid prior to closing.
I do know that. That you have not seen that written anywhere. It was a rhetorical question.
The 4.3M was distributed to secured creditors.
I see. Have you seen that written anywhere, that 4.3M was for MRO?
Remember that there was a deposit of 430K. So then there was an additional deposit on the deposit?
If there is a common thread among the irrational, completely unsupported remaining believers of share safety, it is the rejection of 4.3M as an inadequate price. Despite the straightforward evidence.
What did they pay for it then? The bankruptcy closed, so any payments would be public knowledge.
This one sold for 4.3M. That is what the Monitor reported and the court approved under the watchful eye of the secured creditors, who lost a ton of money. Their other plants are not relevant.
Hmmm well you've posted a hint but no theory on what would explain it.
Theory 1-
The patents were purchased as documented, and funds were set aside from the sale and a process was determined for maintenance of the liquidated firm's patents and accounting records, etc using, yes, the same attorneys.
Comments- seems reasonable.
Theory 2 -
The patents weren't actually purchased as documented, they still reside with the liquidated firm which actually wasn't liquidated. It is being recapitalized and re-started by a new benefactor.
Comments - This would fly in the face of iron-clad definitive proof that the patents were purchased.
Theory 3 -
The patents were purchased as per the APA (of course), but they were then given back to the liquidated firm, which is being recapitalized and re-started by a new benefactor.
Comments - Not sure why anyone would want to do this. Anyone know who is the benefactor?
Look, you either want to get to the truth or you don't. Most of the group has left and those who remain seem to have in common the same style- I have no answer but I believe anyway. Totally fine, it is your privilege to do so.
It will for sure be interesting to see when you admit, if ever, that this had already turned out.
You have to set forth the theory that you think this supports to make a compelling case. What it appears you are saying is it is not logical to you that a JV named after only one of its partners would enter into a single transaction, as the second, larger partner would want some name recognition in a deal. And you are using failure to identify such a case as evidence (I wouldnt even know where to begin looking for this). And so there must be a second transaction that is named after the second partner.
The problem with this is the second, larger partner recently wrote a letter through its legal representative publicly denying that shareholders would receive anything, importantly, either in CCAA or outside of it. The lawyer even referred to the same transaction, interchangeably, as the LCY Transaction.
So can this theory still be legitimately pursued, despite how tantalizing to you the lack of LCY in the transaction's name is? If so, a new theory would need to be presented as to why the letter is not valid, not believable or forged.
What’s been posted? The identity of the phantom purchaser? Why when I debunk the LCY argument does everyone say they don’t want to provide the “other purchasers” identity “again”? I want to hear who it is for the first time.
None of this makes sense. But one thing we know for sure per Lcy’s recent letter is that they aren’t paying anything else beyond their share of the JVs 4.3M.
A deposit of 10% of the Upfront Purchase Price was made as well as the remainder on closing. Are you saying there was a deposit on a deposit against an unannounced additional purchase price? Who is paying that given that LCY recently wrote a letter stating they would not be paying anything else?
Indeed, although hopefully for our sake it doesn’t take 10 months!
As I described my interests here, I am waiting to see when some admit it has already turned out. There is no question the actual outcome.
Let's put the opinion thing to bed, no one here has any quarrel with the definitions. Given the argument for worthlessness includes the concept that suspension/deletion WAS final, it is equally as dismissive of one's "opinion" to say the outcome is still in doubt, as it is for one to say things are final. I could make that argument, but I choose to use merit instead.
We can all agree there is no argument of what constitutes an opinion or a fact, the argument is whether the result here is final.
You like to claim that in the absence of merit, claiming its one's opinion is a suitable last resort. Others here have tried to hold you to a higher standard.
Paid by who?
Are you aware that LCY has recently stipulated in writing that there is no way they are paying one penny more than the 4.3M?
Its not hard to understand, and I'm not trying to convince you to do anything to your holdings. As you've said your decision is over and nothing here will change. I said from the beginning my interest here and on any of these forums is confirmation bias/irrational behavior. I'm trying to understand as it led to a 600% gain here before it was over, and there was almost nothing compelling about it.
It’ll be interesting to see when, if ever, you admit this has played out.
Are you saying this is a carefully worded press release that should be understood to supersede the public APA between the parties to the transaction? That’s not compelling at all.
As the most foundational piece of information around this company, pursuant to an asset purchase agreement dated in September of 2018, materially all of its assets were purchased for 4.3M. This should not be remotely controversial.
Who bought it?
Certainly any "DD" supporting a buy would have to come with, at a minimum, the name of the buyer, right?
And I'm saying, again, that it would be disingenuous for the author to tell the plaintiff that no bids were received that were close to $200M in those sales processes if they were so received outside of those processes.
So your quotation of "in these sales processes" was not used to indicate that OUTSIDE of those sales processes, a windfall was achieved?
If that was the purpose, it was blown up by me, because no lawyer would do that. If not, then I don't know how my quotation of the paragraph could be controversial.
Right. I'm trying to figure out how a lawyer would create a paper trail trying to convince a shareholder that there is no windfall, while concealing a windfall.
And the suspicion that lawyers would write documents whose entire direction is one way, but while using specific language to fool the reader, i.e., "in these sales processes" to qualify that outside of those processes, the very event I am writing to tell you didn't happen, did happen.
So this was a lawyer responding to a legal claim in a form that could be freely shared to his incrimination in the future. You're saying the lawyer used the qualifier "in these sales processes" to deceive the counterparty, deflect its claim while cleverly being technically correct, because in AN ADDITIONAL sales process, a giant windfall was achieved?
"...the result of two robust international sale processes completed under the supervision of both Canadian and US Courts. No bids were received in these sales processes for value anywhere close to the $200 million offer..."
In a public legal document from the Monitor's counsel. Pretty direct language about the value of the transaction, or any transaction, in both countries. But no, still lottery? Who does the honors of drawing the lucky winner?
Let me guess: when the CUSIP is suspended due to “Bankruptcy Liquidation” after a bankruptcy liquidation that means it was suspended either for bankruptcy liquidation OR due to a huge unannounced windfall to be determined by lottery shortly?