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.
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.
Agreed. The notion that the exit from bankruptcy is proof of creditors being made whole "behind the scenes" goes on the all time insanity list.
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”). [/I]
They aren't paying the settlement. This notion, per the excerpt above, can be set aside forever and never returned to.
I was highlighting the opposite. By identifying all the hints that have been clung to that in aggregate have cast a shroud of doubt for some and debunking them beyond a shadow of a doubt, the notion of opinion can be foregone entirely. Unless, of course, someone wants to be intellectually dishonest.
The concept of opinion is not hard to understand. My opinion is the Chiefs will win the super bowl. What I do not understand is why items are debunked conclusively (most recently, you would have to have brain damage to think that the company is involved in the settlement based on the language used and parties to the settlement) that it is forgotten and then brought up later in a collection of "hints" that point to share value.
There are no items relating to the following debunked nonsense that I have left unresponded to:
- exceptional
- transactions
- affirm
Generally those discussions have resulted in falling back to "opinion", which as everyone knows, is akin to waving a white flag.
However, the now hopelessly debunked nonsense around the company being involved in the settlement as evidence that any shareholder repatriation is proof of a "behind the scenes" deal is unresponded 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”).
In the "words have meanings" world, is this not sufficient evidence that the company is not involved in the settlement? If not, why not?
There is absolutely no speculation on the notion that the CEO was on video indicating a "higher" offering price than $7.50, and it was ultimately under $4 on its way well below that.
And there has been no attempt at an explanation other than what TenKay has offered as reasons for this discrepancy.
The price is determined by supply and demand, and the buy/sell impulses have to come from somewhere. How would you explain these drastic moves in the price then?
Note- I do not consider the CEO to be nefarious or a crook as some have suggested. I believe he is trying his best, and does tend to use a lot of optimism and hyperbole, but it is on each person contemplating an investment to decide how accurate his statements are.
This means that, according to the SEC, revenue should not be recognized until:
“Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists.”
“The seller’s price to the buyer is fixed or determinable.”
“Collectibility is reasonably assured.”
“Delivery has occurred or services have been rendered.”
This is what I already said.
I don't think anyone believes you are purporting to give them professional investment advice. And given the anonymous nature of boards like this I don't see any need for such a disclaimer. So I guess I still don't know why this "DD is not obtained from message boards" phrasing persists other than, I guess, to discredit some of the posters that you disagree with.
I am not missing anything on how SAAS revenues (or any other kind) are reported, it would be annoying to an accountant to be asked such a basic accounting question. Cash can be delayed, revenue would be recorded during the period where the service is provided and payment is measurable and reasonably assured.
VERB is growing - fact
Depends on the metric you are using.
VERB has almost 1 million customers - fact
OK
Financials are facts AFTER progress has been made, not before - fact
I guess, but they are reported to remove guesswork. Its dangerous if the more positive aspects of an investment are the parts that are not known and guessed at.
Revenue lags sales - fact
Not correct. Revenue is booked when i) the product/service is delivered/rendered, and ii) payment is reasonably assured. Cash, however, will lag sales/revenue.
VERB has multibillion dollar customers - fact
Ok
VERB is a NASDAQ company - fact
certainly.
Facts are not all that matters when investing - fact
hmmm
Future potential is very important when determining the value of a stock - fact
Yep
Professional investors and institutional investors do not use message boards as DD or advice for investment decisions - fact
I am interested in understanding this kind of comment that is popping up. Are you saying nobody knows anything on this board? Isn't that insulting yourself a little too?
Agreed. I was thinking something like this:
Two men stand near the edge of a cliff. A runaway semi-truck drives past them and off the cliff.
Man #1: Oh no. The driver is not going to survive this accident.
Man #2: What are you talking about? He's going to be fine.
Man #1: That is a long fall. There is no way.
Man #2: He was wearing blue jeans, a red shirt and a black hat. Find me one time in history where a man who drove off a cliff in a semi wearing blue jeans, a red shirt and a black hat didn't survive the fall. I'll wait here.
The semi crashes into the ground horrifically.
Man #1: The man is dead. He is not moving.
Man #2: Can you text me a link to his death certificate? TIA.
Man #1: No, that's not my function to do. But he is dead, I assure you.
Man #2: That's your opinion. Mine is different. The man will get up any time now.
Man #1: Unfortunately no. He fell off a cliff in a semi.
Man #2: LMAO it is a fantasy to think someone will not survive a horrific fall off a cliff in a semi.
The truck explodes into fire. Everything is completely incinerated.
Man #1: See? The man has caught fire, he is now completely incinerated, and unfortunately has not survived.
Man #2: Neat interpretation. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I am interested in understanding the psychology of all of this. My investing history has always been in big companies on fundamentals, and then here is a company that is completely dead, in jail with no chance for parole, and it went up 600% before it was over. I am not sure it was possible to predictably time it like that, but I am interested in understanding.
But good things didn't come, right? Are you interested in knowing the truth at some point? Will you be interested in 2 months? In 1 year? When is the right time to check in on the post mortem?
The outcome Is here.. I am interested in knowing when you knew this was over. I know there is no way you will admit this now, but I actually suspect you believe we are past that point. Believing a miracle announcement is coming 2 months after the Monitor has been dismissed is a little crazy, but it will be exponentially so a few months from now.
The report is like a Redfin estimate on the value of your home, which takes the average price per square foot in your zip code and multiplies it by the square footage reported. There is no more thought put into it.
There is discretion as long as anything reasonably expected to affect the price has to be disclosed.
I am not sure why you believe in the quasi-secret disclosure, where you announce a transaction, not by announcing the transaction but hinting at it.
But I've just proven that affirm is used in positive sentences, with no reference to positive outcomes.
From your source:
3.It has been seen that confirm is used for both negative and positive sentences; whereas affirm is mainly positive.
Where is the word outcome?
Further, with respect to positive/negative sentences:
From: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-negative-sentence-definition-structure-examples.html
A negative sentence is a sentence that states that something is false. Affirmative sentences are the opposite of negative sentences because affirmative sentences state things positively.
All that is meant here is that the use of affirm means to state positively, as in to validate.
Indeed everyone did. I feel like I've just solved a simple and obvious geometry question with an unnecessarily complex proof. Like picking up the house and moving it around the light bulb.
All MATERIAL information has been disclosed. Anything that could reasonably be expected to affect the share price HAS and MUST be disclosed. It does not follow that "everything" has been disclosed. It does follow that the letter from LCY is either i) disclosed somewhere, but nobody cares to find it because its definitionally immaterial, and/or ii) is NOT MATERIAL. It is not material because it does what was plainly stated it does, it affirms the offer that everyone has read and does not otherwise change, modify or amend it in ANY way that could be reasonably expected to affect the price.
Thank you this is helpful to see where you were getting this from, and happily, I have discovered where you went wrong! I want this to be put away as definitively as that whole "opinion" fiasco yesterday, so I'll post excerpts from the article:
Affirm means,
To validate, to state positively.
Remember, to state positively has NOTHING to do with a positive outcome.
Also later:
It also means, to express someone’s dedication towards someone or something .
Obviously nothing about a requirement of a positive outcome.
Now, later:
2.Affirm means, to validate or state positively, to assert as valid and to express someone’s dedication; confirm means, to ratify, to strengthen, and to give assurance.
This is a little brutal because for affirm we have no mention of positive outcome, again it is "validate or state positively" (now we know that validate is the meaning of "state positively"), but we do have a mention that "confirm" is the appropriate term meant to "strengthen" (though of course the use of confirm would not mean "enhance by $500M" in any case, thats insane).
But, here is where you have gotten really turned around:
3.It has been seen that confirm is used for both negative and positive sentences; whereas affirm is mainly positive.[/I]
The word "positive" is again a killer that has tragically got your hopes up. This sentence absolutely does not refer to positive or negative outcomes. See this link for reference: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-negative-sentence-definition-structure-examples.html
A negative sentence is a sentence that states that something is false. In English, we create negative sentences by adding the word 'not' after the auxiliary, or helping, verb.
Affirmative sentences are the opposite of negative sentences because affirmative sentences state things positively.[/I]
What this means is that the key nuance of difference between "affirm" and "confirm" is that you cannot use "affirm" in a sentence like this: I can affirm that we did not win the game today. That would be using affirm in a negative sentence.
Correct sentences include:
I can affirm I have lost all my money. (positive sentence, negative outcome)
I can confirm I have not lost all my money. (negative sentence, positive outcome)
Incorrect sentence would include:
I can affirm I have not lost all my money. (positive outcome, but incorrect because "affirm" cannot be used for negative sentences).
I think this settles it once in for all.
You have not. You have provided examples of the word in practical uses where a positive outcome is involved. But there does not exist a definition of the word that involves a required outcome. I then eliminated that argument permanently with the proven death sentence practical use examples all over the place.
I don't understand why you keep referring to the judge's requirement to use words so carefully that a nuance between two synonyms MUST mean the existence of a $500M windfall, but the same judge is not obligated to be actually forthcoming about $500M in value. Why do you keep doing that?
You have yet to produce a definition of the word "affirm" that requires the outcome of what is being affirmed be positive. Which is still way below the threshold of your further assertion that the word means "positive and enhanced by $500M". There is a definition that can be found from several sources where the word may mean "state positively". While the outcome for equity shareholders was terrible as warned throughout, the provision of the affirming letter was positive as the affirming party affirmed in writing that they would perform if the JV's bid was selected. The was a vote of confidence in the transaction consummating made to the court. Colloquially, affirm is just a more formal and official way of saying confirm, which is why they are synonyms and affirm tends to be used in court settings.
It literally does not mean that if there is no definition that says that. Where is the definition that says that?
I have said everything MATERIAL has been disclosed (meaning, anything that could be reasonably expected to affect the price). That is a legal requirement.
LOL to state positively does not mean positive outcome. I dont see a positive outcome required in any definition of the word anywhere. Where are you seeing that?
Well, you walked right into that one:
verb: affirm; 3rd person present: affirms; past tense: affirmed; past participle: affirmed; gerund or present participle: affirming
1.
state as a fact; assert strongly and publicly.
"he affirmed the country's commitment to peace"
LAW
accept or confirm the validity of (a judgment or agreement); ratify.
LAW
make a formal declaration rather than taking an oath (e.g., to testify truthfully).
LAW
(of a court) uphold (a decision) on appeal.
Lol speaking of terms, let me use the term "opinion" properly. In my opinion, if you are spending far more time thinking on the use of a term than the original author, you are overthinking whether there was a special secret-hiding reason the author used the term.
"to state positively" has no relation to whether there is a "positive outcome". An appeal court could affirm the death penalty for a criminal. And again, there is no definition anywhere that the word means "confirm and enhance by $500M".
This is overthinking something that was not overthought by the author(s). Affirm, confirm or ratify would have all worked in this instance. There is absolutely no definition of affirm that would mean "to confirm and additionally enhance by $500M". If they wanted to communicate the enhancement with no ambiguity whatsoever, they could have done so.
You have abandoned (with a straight face at least) the fall back of "its my opinion" when merits fail if you are waving the white flag here:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153448096
This is not correct because the company was still publicly traded after the bankruptcy was filed. The monitor and courts have an absolute duty to disclose all material information up until the deletion.
Further to this, the 10th Monitors report could basically be entitled "Whatever you do, do not believe the internet or message board theories on this transaction". For PWC to submit this report with the purpose of communicating that message but while cleverly wording it so as to leave room for additional transformative consideration would be the bankruptcy fraud equivalent in stupidity of a bank robber breaking into a bank and then calling the cops when they can't safely get out with the loot.
You have to stay with me here. We are not on the topic of whether its my opinion that additional consideration beyond what has been stated has or hasn't been paid.
What I have put forth is that it is not possible for MATERIAL information (material being information that would reasonably be expect to impact the price) would remain undisclosed throughout the public's term to evaluate a transaction. Because that possibility would render the stock market uninvestable. Now are you saying that that it is also my opinion, and not a fact?
Obviously there is no way to enforce an honest response but I do not believe anyone could honestly say that the above laws of public reporting are an opinion.
Yes, always, there are no times when material information is hidden during the completion of a transaction and announced afterward, leaving investors no opportunity to weigh that information in their investment decision.
But of course you would be correct that the consideration you seem to believe was paid would be operative in this case if it was supported by documents. But there was no consideration beyond the stated consideration in the documents. You have to admit that your argument does not rely on any transaction whose even most basic details were laid out (like the amount, LOL) prior to deletion. Your argument therefor is only that something else was "hinted at" prior to deletion, which again, it is not possible that a transaction of unknown value would allowed to be hinted at and not laid out completely for investors to be able to weigh it in real time. The implications of this possibility are an uninvestable stock market.
Material information (information reasonably expected to have an impact on the share price) is not released 2 months or (or 2 years) after a transaction is closed. The whole of this transaction was stated plainly in this case many times, but think about the implications if that were possible to be true. No one would be able to trust reports on any transaction, ever, because there is always the possibility of a second (or third or fourth) transaction being announced post closing. Even regularly quarterly/yearly reports, are they accurate or will they be adjusted by information hidden during the announced term? Pure chaos.
Short answer no it wouldn’t need another qualifier.
It would need another defined term and the notion of the Total Purchase Price of which the various pieces are each a subset. Thats how you define multiple facets of a Purchase Price in a legal document.
Speaking of things needed/unneeded. There is no reason to call the alleged only transaction “The Visolis Transaction” . In fact there is not one example ever of. A JV doing one deal where the only transaction is named after the much smaller of the 2 companies. Lol.
New topic I guess. They can call it whatever they want as long as they make what they want to say clear. In this case it looks like one organization was taking the lead, the transaction was named after them, and they other was asked to make sure they affirmed that they would perform as well in order for the JV's bid to be reliable if chosen.
What about the 4th Corp? BioAmber? What happens to “3 corps 2 countries”? Why authorize pwc to do what it has to do “in Canada , the US, and ELSEWHERE” if there was only 3 corps in 2 countries where there’s most obviously at least one other location referred to as “elsewhere” (st least one). If everything must be publicly disclosed and transparent then why not name the other country/countries?
For one, they did not expect this to be remotely controversial to be discussed later. If they had any reason to believe there could be any business of any kind down the line in another country, any document to effect control of a patent, tax holding or currency hedge, anything, then it makes sense to include this catch-all kind of comment. Are you saying that they used the extra term in order to make sure they were being fully truthful about another country being involved, but then they were not feeling truthful enough to mention that that also entailed a windfall changing the value of a share of this company from $0 to $4?
The problem with assuming your opinion is fact , is that if some of the things you said have already fallen apart ( examples above and 2 years of posts) then you’ve already lost the credibility to be so sure of anything else. Like I’ve stated repeatedly. The only FACT here is that we have different OPINIONS [/I]
I don't see anything falling apart in my prior post.
Upfront Purchase Price- if this was meant to be a qualifying statement of a part of an overall, larger purchase price, then some additional portion would have to be detailed at the same time, in the same document as the Upfront Purchase Price, no? Otherwise, the "upfront" just qualifies when the payment is made. I have never seen a document define a portion of a defined term, then not mention the remaining portion. And if there was a reason that nothing could be said about some additional portion, then the "upfront" qualifier would become a bizarre wink at astute investors in an effort to actively deceive the regular investing public.
Exceptional - nothing here. This was exceptional in many ways, take your pick, including but not limited to the required existence of the exceptional 10th report, which was created only to address bizarre internet and message board interpretations and theories.
Elsewhere - I have formed businesses that require a dozen companies in a half dozen countries to optimize taxes, etc. The author wrote this as a catch-all and would be horrified to think it was ruminated on afterward as evidence of a second, hinted at but never explained, transaction.