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.
But if your mechanic told you that your car was in seriously bad condition and was about to stop working, then it stopped working entirely, would you believe the mechanic? Or would you assume that eventually it would just start working again months later?
I was asking for your opinion of who you theorized did it. I don't know how you can argue a phantom transaction without even a narrative of who entered into it and what about their circumstances would cause them to do so secretly.
Who paid beyond the 4.34M from the JV?
Public companies do not hide good information. Especially not the embattled ones that are down huge the last 12 months.
So his prediction that the share price, no matter how calmly and confidently it was relayed over and over, would plummet by virtue of the mechanics of a follow on offering, was just a guess, and your knowledge, while down 90% on your investment LTM, of public deals announced by the company coupled with a belief that they have more unannounced deals, is proper “DD”?
For sure, and what I was aiming at getting out of this one was, why the hyperbole, emotion and winning of an argument sentiment around something as impersonal as the market's valuation of this company?
If the goal outside of conversing is to educate, wouldn't it be better if hyberbole and emotion were left out?
It doesn't bother me at all. I was asking why there seems to be an aura of hyperbole, emotion and winning of an argument type sentiment around something as impersonal as a market's valuation of a company out of curiosity.
The market cannot take a position against the price, as the market is the price.
Now please answer this: why such a religious tone for commenting on a company?
No, but investors/entities/people that comprise the market may place their bet and do so. The sum total of all those decisions make the market price.
It does mean that. Every minute of every trading day this company and all others are being valued by the market. Any company that is not appreciating, definitionally, does not have a growth story that is bought into by the market.
Fair comment. The market wouldn’t be “thrilled” and I was wrong to write that. It doesn’t care. It can be wrong, but it’s a brain teaser on how to describe that because assets are re-valued in real time. This company could be 20M or 40M in 30 days, does that make it wrong today, or at that point?
Now please answer this: why such a religious tone for commenting on a company?
Why do the comments about an (impersonal) company, and the market at large, sound so religious?
Completely understand the desire to support an investment. But "grave", "judgment day", and "vindicated" are bizarre terms, to me, to use.
The "market" has not made a point-in-time error. It values this company every trading hour of every trading day, and would be thrilled to value this company (or any) at a lot more money, or less, as the situation prescribes.
But isn't that what has been proven over the last 12 months?
So with all those little arguments dead, you’re opting for a “just because” position to avoid acceptance?
Its been completely debunked. The narrative for months was that the purchase of the assets was only a deposit from one half of the JV, with some windfall coming from the other half. Well, the other half just wrote a letter that no such windfall is coming.
Has nothing to do with NASDAQ vs OTC. Companies that are smaller and highly speculative will always attract more interest and controversy, and hence, online debate and discussion.
Why not? What’s left that hasn’t been debunked?
Serious question: doesn’t the LCY lawyer letter move this into the fact category? Wasn’t your argument always
*upfront payment
*the Visolis transaction
?
I don't believe the cancellation of equity will change things here that much, as funny as that sounds. The suspension/deletion didn't, people just pivoted to a notion that suspension/deletion put the stock into a version of purgatory where no one knows whether its very valuable or worthless. I suspect the same would happen in a cancellation. There would still be those saying a buyout is being processed and the old entity would cease to exist after being absorbed anyway. I mean, if the 10th Monitor's report or recent LCY attorney letter didn't work, and those were the equivalent of someone shouting with a megaphone, then I don't see it happening with cancellation either.
I am not sure I agree it was the correct move. I am inclined to say it was marginally better, all things being equal, but the problem is it was enacted to mask other problems. A reverse split was required to sell equity for needed cash under the approved share structure, as I recall. And a reverse split under the guise of the promised land journey to NASDAQ was more palatable.
Before the acquisition, the company had revenues that, if you're rounding, were 0.
Combined, it is now worth a few million dollars more than the target's acquisition price.
How do you square this "OTC is no good" mantra with the fact that the company was worth at some point almost 10X as much on the OTC?
I agree with you.
Is this another situation where a lawyer has put forth a (public) legal letter on a subject that has been controversial enough to provoke the exceptional 10th Monitors report, and this time has written the entire letter toward the goal of communicating that nothing more is coming, BUT has cleverly selected one of the alternatives to identify the buyer that concurrently 1) actively deceives the general public and 2) quietly confirms a buyout to more astute investors?
Short answer is I am interested in confirmation bias/irrationality to see if there is a way to predict it and make money off of it. My investing history has always been in big companies that drive smaller returns than this stock did in its run up to .06 and it had absolutely no chance of surviving. So it’s interesting.
But so many of your points have been crushed so definitively.
It is now impossible to believe LCY that LCY had "affirmed" (OMG) the deal to the tune of more money.
It is now impossible to believe that "upfront" had a meaning that was in any way positive for shareholders.
It is now impossible to believe that the company is settling a court case with money and that that indicates satisfaction of all senior financing sources.
What is left to support whatever you have "laid out"?
So your position is every time a CUSIP is suspended after a bankruptcy liquidation the investing public waits a few months to find out whether there was 1) a bankruptcy liquidation, or 2) a giant windfall transaction? The CUSIP suspension serves as a pivot point after which one of two completely different outcomes can be revealed?
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.[/I]
And now the insanity represent by:
*Upfront
can now be definitively put to rest. No opinion involved.
Which authority who calmly, thoroughly and consistently informed them of the results of this bankruptcy liquidation will they go after first????
Successfully in the cases presented, with no logical argument against.
I don't think there is any misconception about what "opinion" or "interpretation" here. What some, including myself, have tried to do, is eliminate the opinion defense by solving for a few of its inputs.
Speaking frankly, I have never seen anything remotely compelling to support a pay out case here. But I can tell that the argument in favor of it is not a specific theory about how things have/will go down, its more of an aggregation of perceived inconsistencies that when all combined, leave some to believe they don't know whats going to happen and its therefor subject to opinion. If we look at each of these "inconsistencies", though, there is now almost nothing left to the argument. It REALLY
strains credulity that the outcome is subject to opinion where there is almost no sensible argument for it.
*the Visolis transaction - well this has been eliminated entirely as this was based on the second party to the JV completing a secret, announced transaction. No one with a brain can now say there is any chance this has happened.
*name on the land title registry - you know what happened there
*the settlement - it has been proven that the settlement does NOT involve the company
What is left to support any "opinion" about a payout? If nothing or almost nothing, its disingenuous to a good faith argument to call it an opinion.
Yep. Not by Visolis or LCY, with 100% certainty. So I’m not sure why anyone could still maintain a hope here.
How does it not? Was that argument not that the “second half” of the JV wasn’t mentioned by name because their (LCY’s) participation was going to be more fully revealed later in the second, planned, more lucrative transaction?
But it renders any argument indicated by “*the Visolis Transaction”, presumably an argument based on the other side of the JV swooping in with the “second transaction” pretty inept, right?
The crazy part is that there are searchable posts asserting frustration with the notion that a RS was imminent. The usual rejection of "bashers". Then the RS was announced, and quickly was accepted on the basis that it was actually positive, while the "bashers" noted that a deep price cut was (obviously) unfortunately coming. That was rejected. Then the price cut happened, and now the latest is not to believe anyone on a message board...
And yet there STILL will be more posts about where is the money coming to pay the settlement!!!!
From the documents, Bioamber, again, again, again, is a named defendant on the original claim, and is NOT a Settling Defendant pursuant to this most recent order dated Jan 14, 2020:
WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff Chad Zubriski (“Lead Plaintiff”) and Named Plaintiff George Dertanay (together, Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Jean- François Huc (“Huc”) and Mario Saucier (“Settling Defendants”), have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, dated December 18, 2019
I've read it, and posted from it, several times now.
As I said, Bioamber IS named in the original action made while it was in business, however, the company is NOT a Settling Defendant as defined in the settlement documents. The company is not involved in the settlement at all.
As I have also said several times, this is too definitive to even bother returning to, for anyone.
Bioamber is named in the original action made while it was in business, however, the company is not a Settling Defendant as defined in the settlement documents. The company is not involved in the settlement at all.
WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff Chad Zubriski (“Lead Plaintiff”) and Named Plaintiff George Dertanay (together, Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Jean- François Huc (“Huc”) and Mario Saucier (“Settling Defendants”).
The parties to the settlement do NOT include the company and certainly not the company that bought the assets of the company. This notion, per the excerpt above, can be set aside forever and never returned to.
WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff Chad Zubriski (“Lead Plaintiff”) and Named Plaintiff George Dertanay (together, Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Jean- François Huc (“Huc”) and Mario Saucier (“Settling Defendants”).
There isn't an insurance theory. The former company is not a party to the settlement. This notion, per the excerpt above, can be set aside forever and never returned to.