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.
There is plenty of definitive facts, just not the “definitive” outcome of “cancellation”. As an example, we recently learned definitively from LCY that it has not and will not pay additional remuneration beyond what was stated by the Monitor. That was your theory on how a share purchase happened, but no matter, your opinion is that another unnamed third party made the purchase instead.
Soon another step will be taken, but that also will not be definitive enough for you to accept. Not in this forum at least.
VC's make money when their portfolio companies exit, they may negotiate hard at the outset but their interests couldn't possibly be more aligned.
A stark contrast to follow on private placements, where "investors" are afforded an opportunity to buy in at a discount and sell prior to incurring any real risk.
Right. The only Easter egg supporting a secret deal that I can think of that isn't dead is that letter from the losing bidder's lawyer referencing a phone conversation with PWC.
There is new information. The LCY lawyer letter is new, and it renders your prior arguments invalid. At least any other ones I can remember, as "affirming", "Visolis", "Upfront", "under seal", etc all were an argument toward the other side of the JV "affirming" the deal by way of a giant increase on the "upfront" payment. We now know that isn't happening, or alternatively, are interested in your position as to why the new information does not confirm this.
This is meant to be a non-contentious, thoughtful post. The company just raised/diluted something like 1/6 of its market cap to fund a year of operations. And this was not hard to predict. I know many are very excited by certain things here, but is there a point where longtime frustration with the market turns to acceptance/understanding of what it is saying? Note- that in no way says this company won't be successful. Its about understanding the current assessment instead of believing there is a giant disconnect.
In the time it took to produce this response you could have linked a prior response from the last 2 years that would indicate specifically why you don’t believe this:
"Thirdly, we confirm that the transaction with NumberCo provides for no additional consideration other than the payment made at closing, including any consideration to equity holders: consequently there is no value in the transaction for holders of equity claims such as those of your clients."
Instead now it appears you have no answer other than a generic and irrelevant “4.3M isn’t all of it”.
But how do you reconcile that LCY's attorney wrote a legal letter stating matter of factly that the asset purchase was the only money coming in the transaction, which is utterly consistent with the Monitor's reports, signed off on by the judge and watched intently by the secured creditors?
Look, you have pointed out a real inconsistency. Generally, many of the items offered here ("affirming", "upfront", etc) I have found horrendously not compelling. Just nothing there. But this is a written statement referencing a share purchase. This has been directly refuted by all of the Monitor's reports, but it is still right there in writing.
Look at the motivation here. This letter is from the losing bidder, it references the share purchase in a conversation (nothing in writing EVER from PWC confirmed any share purchase), and it was made to make an argument. On the other side, the Monitor and judge are bound by a whole different level of duty of precision, and the secured creditors' motivation was their own money.
With LCY's attorney now writing letters asking to be left alone on the notion of a second transaction, the company's board and employees nowhere to be found, and delisted, which notion, the share purchase, or liquidation, is more consistent with the current state of things?
So since this letter was written (by the attorney of the bitter, losing bidder who had opportunity to increase their bid and did not do so), the Monitor has had ample opportunity to report the outcome of the liquidation under supervision of courts in 2 countries and under the highly motivation watchful eye of the secured creditors, what did they report?
You are trying to assert that some very big, powerful companies were once smaller, struggling companies, and therefor, its reasonable to assume that a smaller, struggling company will likely be a big powerful company some day. That doesn't follow.
Does anyone see an answer?
I'm doing a public service here.
Asked but not answered. The answer provided is a generic answer to a question of why do you think you're getting paid off in this bankruptcy.
The question is: Why don't you believe this written statement?
"Thirdly, we confirm that the transaction with NumberCo provides for no additional consideration other than the payment made at closing, including any consideration to equity holders: consequently there is no value in the transaction for holders of equity claims such as those of your clients."
Potential answers could be (that I can think of but do not find compelling):
1) the lawyer for the Monitor is lying
2) the lawyer for the Monitor is not credible
3) this letter is forged
Of course its active. Its liquidated with no employees, and that means there is no one to proactively wind it down. Thankfully, to at least protect the investing public, it has been delisted.
Were you thinking that it still being active was a signal that a secret deal happened? That would be insane.
What is your interpretation of that paragraph? That PWC was trying to trick people?
The letter from PWC's attorney told you what it means.
"Thirdly, we confirm that the transaction with NumberCo provides for no additional consideration other than the payment made at closing, including any consideration to equity holders: consequently there is no value in the transaction for holders of equity claims such as those of your clients."
Why are you talking about "different opinions/interpretations" of this?
Haha.
I might have suspected in reply a comment about no additional payment "*in the CCAA". However, there is no such qualification here. In fact, the author was careful to note that both processes were overseen by "both Canadian and US courts".
There will be an opinion that the author of this letter meant something else entirely, or used a word cleverly to trick the intended readers.
Followed by a comment about how troubling it is that it is not understood the difference between fact vs opinion, despite iron-clad evidence proving a fact and eliminating any need for opinion.
Wait a second, can't let you play too fast and loose here.
Visolis and LCY, in a JV, gave 430K in a deposit and then the rest of the Upfront Purchase Price on closing. So now you are saying the 4.3M was also a deposit? A deposit on a deposit? Since that doesn't make sense can we put the 4.3M as the total payment on the fact side of the ledger?
One half of the same JV has recently issued a legal letter stating they have already paid what they are paying. So why can't we put this into the fact side of the ledger? Because your opinion is you don't believe the LCY attorney? Why not?
Unless of course what has been stated here, that liquidation results in an employee-less, boardless, company with no ability to wind itself down and that share suspension is the end game ends up being correct, right? Then charter pulling would be a consistent next step in that stated reality, and relying on "opinion" would just be an intellectually dishonest means to kick the can down the road endlessly.
When the charter is pulled will we have arrived at fact yet?
An informed opinion would that is supported by facts. For example, my informed opinion that Bioamber is bankrupt, liquidated, delisted and will never trade again is supported, among many other things, by the FACT that neither Visolis, LCY or KKR purchased the equity of the company in any transaction beyond the one stated in plain English by the court and Monitor. That was made a fact by the recent LCY letter. As I'm sure you will state, the Fact that neither Visolis, LCY or KKR so invested in Bioamber does not make the death of Bomber a fact in and of itself. It is a supporting fact. What are the facts that support the continuation of Bioamber? I would argue only your opinion that 4.3M wasn't enough.
An informed opinion is informed by facts. So we are going with blind opinion.
Are we talking blind opinion or informed opinion? If an informed opinion, certainly the basics must be known to inform it. I mean the very, very basics - who/when/what/why.
Just give us the simple details then while all the complexities wait for the reveal. Who bought it? How much did they pay? Certainly they couldn't close out the liquidation without establishing these, right?
Thank you. And you have it all correct. I am looking for some details of the "other interpretation", simple items like who/what/when/why, and none can be provided other than mysterious hints of impropriety or inconsistency, that when fully checked, are not improper or inconsistent at all.
Because someone else bought it and then gave it back to Bioamber which is why it is still maintaining patents in its name? Who bought it?
No it was liquidated and nobody works there.
This is likely why FINRA shut this down - to save people from themselves.
Who’s the buyer?
If the no longer refuted statement that the company is not in operation and will never return is correct, then what confirmation would additionally be coming?
Have you considered investing in a portfolio of bankrupt companies to diversify the risk but ride the upside of those companies that get a second payment post liquidation? Since it could go either way every time.
Everyone is equally correct. There is simply no way to know the result of this public company’s bankruptcy liquidation, and it was no ones responsibility to report it.
There is currently no articulated theory about an equity purchase that I am aware of. Other than, I guess, an “opinion” that someone did, and that the details are unknowable.
Correct in a way. It hasn't really been the place of any authority overseeing this to cancel equity, its function has been to orderly distribute whatever value is left, so you're right, it hasn't been an option.
Any sole proprietor can wind down a business any time he /she wants within the rules. Its not the place of a third party to say when it is no longer worthwhile to continue a company's existence, even if it has no more assets and a debt it can't pay - that is the domain of the company's officers, which work under the company's board, which works for its shareholders. Since there is no more board or officers, that hasn't happened yet. What has happened is another body simply has prevented it from trading anymore.
It looks like the next step is a state charter revocation, which may be another step here but it will not change your mind.
Now, on the 1:1 and Cash. Who is swapping and providing cash? If you can't answer, then I am not sure how you could think that is happening.
Yet (paraphrasing from memory) "nothing remotely compelling supporting shares being worthless has been said by anyone in authority or in the documents".
Unreal.
It is not crazier than the notion of a hidden transaction in a public bankruptcy, but it is nonetheless not statistically correct. You cannot have a legitimate opinion that you are better off with pocket kings (which carries only a 19% chance of winning). You can have an opinion that pocket kings is better on any given hand, which would be incorrect, but given it is a game a chance, you have a shot. But you cannot assert an opinion that pocket kings are better generally. Note- Monitor-run liquidations under the supervision of a judge and with secured creditors watching are NOT a game of chance. There is only one correct understanding of the outcome when reported.
Crazy. Reminds me of a guy I went did a Vegas with who said he preferred pocket kings to pocket aces. I was incredulous and kept jokingly asking why all weekend. He said it just worked better for him, in his opinion.
Haha!
Would you kindly repeat one more time, I haven't been here 2 years. I have never seen any credible narrative for what has happened with specifics of who, how much, etc. What I thought I did understand was that it was believed that LCY, the second half of the JV that bought the assets, was entering into a "second transaction" that was going to be a lot more lucrative for shareholders. The stated evidence for this was the use of the word "affirming", the defined name of the transaction in the documents naming only Visolis, and the notion that the letter was "under seal". Unfortunately LCY's attorney wrote a letter that blew this up.
nor has any official person or document said anything that remotely leads me to believe that there’s anything wrong with “my car”
Come on man. That quote is ludicrous. If you want to say you still believe, thats one thing. Saying that no official people, particularly after the 10th Monitor report, the judge's writings on the proposed lawsuit, and the recent LCY attorney letter provided any documentation that "remotely" leads you to believe there is a problem cannot be justified.