4.34m is the better than nothing. That was the best option. It could have been a lot worse. They could have waited to declare bankruptcy until a point where there were much greater liabilities than what they ended up with.

I haven’t followed any of the twitter action. I am absolutely 100% certain in the outcome and I would call it embarrassing at best and outfight nefarious at worst for anyone to claim otherwise.

Yes it’s over. There is no DD, that concept doesn’t make sense given the outcome. I’m only here observing the insanity.

This has been debunked and explained so many times and was ultimately settled by a letter from and LCY lawyer, which was overkill and redundant.

Yes, this has been shed light upon with a powerful blinding spotlight many times. What was described was that granting the bankruptcy relief of accepting the 4.34M keeping the creditors at bay and not pursuing intrusive legal action was in the best interest of all the stakeholders and the benefit of such relief outweighed the hardship of granting it.

Interesting, I had not understood that the debt wasn't discharged at the end of the bankruptcy. I suppose if it was it would have necessitated cancellation, so your statement makes sense as to why there wasn't a forced cancelation.

It was a bankruptcy with an initial desire to seek restructure. That failed so it went to liquidation. It is not cancelled because the executives resigned when restructure failed as they were not needed through the liquidation portion. Now there is no one to cancel the stripped shares, so FINRA did what was in their power and permanently suspended.

What? Wikipedia aggregates and mirrors other publicly reported information. This wasn’t a restructure. The best bid was accepted in the liquidation- that was in the best interest of all stakeholders. And the benefit of granting the bankruptcy relief- namely the allowance of an organized process to accept the best bid possible- did outweigh the potential hardships in the alternative. But make no mistake- you lost any investment here.

The information on Wiki is consistent with the Monitors reports, not a replacement for it. A summary would be a good way of putting it.

When the Monitor said the Longs weren’t getting paid and the judges approved and secured creditors did not object, it means the Longs aren’t getting paid. And then later LCY said specifically the Longs weren’t getting paid for good measure.

You realize everything on that page comes from the monitor reports right? So really it’s do you believe the losing bidder over the Monitor reports, which included approval from the judges?

It is truly an opinion pulled out of nowhere.

That write up looked correct to me. Wikis policy is to change or remove items that can’t be verified or are contradicted by public info. It’s not infallible because it’s limited by the quality of its sources. But either way, there will be no correction to the wiki Bioamber page as it all came from the public reports often referenced here.

There was a buy out? But most here are bragging about the suspended shares they still own. Why or how could anyone believe this garbage?

The "documents" could not possibly be more overwhelmingly condemning of any ludicrous possibility of shareholders being paid.

It was a gamble prior to the restructuring attempt. It has not been a gamble since. There are no gambles in court supervised Monitor reporting for public companies.

Not possible. And insane.

Even if you humor the ludicrous impossibility of a share purchase, if a company bought shares in another, the purchase amount would not impact the income statement in the form of a deeper loss, it would hit the cash flow and balance sheet.

Understood and agreed.

It is unreal that the remaining waning resistance to acceptance is “in your face! It’s liquidated, suspended and voided, but not canceled!”

Subsequent to this quote, an orderly and publicly reported process was conducted to try to restructure the company. It was reported that the restructure attempt failed and all employees were let go/resigned. Then an orderly and publicly reported process was conducted to liquidate the company, and the results of that were reported. Then trading was suspended, the ticker deleted, the charter of the company voided.

There have been a handful of companies come back from SEC suspension, usually always after correcting a filing delay. Almost always those trading resumption’s are short lived anyway. Never had a company resumed trading after FiNRA suspension. It’s been explained why here many times by the same folks who’ve outlined how all these events- resignation, restructure attempt, liquidation, suspension/delisting and voiding- are completely consistent with the public Monitors reports. There is 0 indication anyway to be found that contradicts the reports or the event trajectory.

Who’s “they”? The “they” who would have to cancel the stock don’t work on, for, or on behalf of the company anymore. Another “they” - Finra, did what’s in its power to prevent harm, which is suspend it and delete the ticker forever. I’m not sure why permanent suspension and deletion, followed by charter voiding, is a badge of honor better than cancellation.

But what if the bankruptcy is closed and over and no restructuring has occurred?

Saying you get more confidence as the waning nonsensical theories get debunked, and predicted things like delisting, voiding, LCY's written confirmation that they're moved on, etc, is just intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.

In order to keep the dream alive you cannot commit to a date. So no one will give one. Nor any kind of details about the proposed transaction. Nor any proof whatsoever than anyone is working on it, for or on behalf of the company.

Is this confidence that the "second transaction" is happening on this date? Nothing will happen of course. So is there no second transaction when nothing happens by end of month?

This is just complete wreckless nonsense.

So in other words, the scope and intent of the CCAA included restructure. Too bad it failed and the CCAA is now closed. So there was never some weird liquidation within CCAA and then recap outside of it- which is generally what is being argued by the few remaining hopefuls.

Me too.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever. Never has been.

The person who gave you that analogy bamboozled you.

The company doesn’t have anyone working for or on behalf of it to cancel said shares.

Bankruptcy is bankruptcy. You file for it because you believe you can establish the value of receiving relief, whether “voluntarily” while you’re still in reasonable operation, or (ideally not) after your bills are late and you’re out of cash. Bankruptcy relief is not granted if you are on a trajectory to remain in operation. Because then you’re asking a judge to help you cheat creditors.

Remember that when they filed they were hoping for a restructuring.

Did you think the judge was winking to shareholders with this comment, or simply promising they would approve the highest bid?

What you’re suggesting would constitute bankruptcy fraud. What’s insane is how obvious it would be. It’s one thing to try to hide money in a complicated maze of offshore accounts, it’s another for a parent company to request bankruptcy protection, allow its subsidiaries to be liquidated while it keeps assets for itself, and creditors to receive small recoveries before the debt is discharged and the parent lives on with its assets in tact. Its so illegal on an elementary level it’s impossible to consider anyone would even try it.

It has been evidenced to you that the A/R was collected and included in the final wind-down that paid off the Monitor and provided partial recovery to some creditors, and that the Monitor's mandate was to liquidate all of the companies. If there was chunks of valuable assets not to be liquidated, the stock would not have been trading in pennies after the restructuring failed.

So you take comfort that the shares in Bioaq that you bought are still shares in Bioaq. Doesn't bother you that everything reported is completely consistent with liquidation, including of course, that the Bioaq shares that you bought are still shares in Bioaq.

Question: if the company was bought, wouldnt the symbol you reference need to have been changed in favor of the purchaser?

By who? How much?

It all closed without objection. And the proof is as definitive as it is overwhelming.

Uh huh. What was the rest of the deal?

No. They have no clue. They just “think 4.34M wasn’t the whole deal”. Very sophisticated.