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.
About PWC's claim there will be no value from sale....
Simply means that the sale transaction itself will produce no Immediate value or equity return.
Does not mean that the new company or BIOA Sarnia (wholly own subsidiary of BIOA, Inc. US) will have no value to shareholders.
Do not CONFLATE money to equity holders from sale as Value of the company once restructuring is complete.
Where is ANY evidence that Bioamber Sarnia has been deemed "bankrupt" by the Canadian courts under the BIA or filed for it,
Since this Wholly Owned subsidiary of BIOA Inc (USA) is NOT bankrupt, No US judge can declare it (BIOA-Sarnia) or BIOA bankrupt.
BIOA-Sarnia is a foreign corporation outside of US jurisdiction.
No one gives FINRA a "HEADS-UP" 6 to 9 months Advance Notice that a company is to be delisted. -- That is sheer nonsense.
There is not a single shred of evidence that FINRA has been contacted and advised that SOMEDAY (i.e., a future date) the Company will be delisted.
If FINRA was contracted, it had nothing to do with any future "heads-ups" notice 9 to 12 months in advance to schedule a ticker cancellation date.
If PWC contacted FNIRA, it was not to schedule the cancellation of BIOA's / BIOAQ's listing way way far in the future.
Additionally, PWC's statement about shareholders realizing equity from the sale of the company DOES NOT EQUAL Share will be cancelled, nor does it preclude increase in share value once the new company reverse-merges with BIOAQ
BioAmber Chemicals = NewCo set up by Visolis and LCY
https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2019/7/2/TPQGGVAUVTAMWVKZXBYKPUB.PNG
PWC Monitor: Received two bids for company as a whole....
We already know who bid and who won this bid for CO as a whole.
Now the geniuses here DEMAND that you believe the PWC did not report these FACTS.
And that the term "Company as a whole" means something other than "company as a whole."
Same Geniuses DEMAND that we believe that PWC will act against the interests of ALL stakeholders and have been busy cutting the company up and selling it piecemeal.
Same Geniuses DEMAND that we believe that PWC will act against PWC's own interests by making their own bid and sale announcement a LIE on the record, for which they could be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars.
So sure are the GENIUSES of their FAKE FACTS they show up here every day to remind us just how FAKE + GENIUS they really are.
The BIG Picture is in Koan's post.
Also, US LAW contains EXCEPTIONS specifically for Bankruptcy regarding the retention of NOL value.
No one on this board has the knowledge, the facts and figures to predict NOL's value.
FACTS: www.woodllp.com/Publications/Articles/ma/030301.htm
Corporations have many different planning opportunities when armed with this information including the ability to analyze how an anticipated transaction might result in an ownership change.
If it is known that a particular transaction will cause an ownership change and trigger a potential limitation, it might be possible to change the structure or timing of the transaction to avoid incurring the limitation. A 382 study can also assist in planning for potential income tax liabilities when the company turns profitable.
So, if there is a mandate to maximize value and minimize harm, a study would have to be done and the result would be WHAT?
HINT: Starts with an "Re" and ends with "structuring".
There's no reason to believe that a simple liquidation would take this long.
The EMPTY-SHELL theorists have no answer to the crystal clear wording of the Monitor-documents regard RESTRUCTURING.
Empty Shells do not need to be/cannot be "restructured."
ERGO: It is not an empty shell.
FACT: There is no one here on this board who possesses all of the fact and figures necessary to conduct & complete a 382 study to determine the NOL outcome.
So tell us, Genius, what is FINRA waiting for? -- What's holding them back?
After all, wasn't FINRA notified of SOMETHING about 4 months ago?
After 4 months of waiting to see FINRA respond to whatever the supposed "notification" was about -- we can be SURE of ONE THING.
FINRA was NOT notified to cancel/delist BIOAQ. It doessn't take FINRA 4 months to delist.
So IF in fact FINRA was notified 4 months ago as claimed, then the notification must have been about something else, like an imminent Ticker Change, pending only the judge's gavel on Chap 15.
Link to that for us, Greenman.
The assets of who -- U.S. BIOMABER Inc. NO, because Canada/PWC has no jurisdiction over them.
It was never that CCAA buyers didn't want the U.S. BIOMABER Inc.'s patent, contract, NOLs, etc.
They're simply not on the Canadian table. That's why there is a 2-step process. When CCAA is done, LCY has to buyout U.S. BIOMABER Inc. to acquire the actual rights to run the plants and the multi-million contracts, NOLS etc.
Who owned/owns the BIOA patents? Was BioA just the Assignee?
If BIOA owns patents, what happens when/if BIOA is dissolved?
Is BIOA is just assignee of patents, then dissolution only reverts patents back to original owner(s).
Why would LCY, the acquirer
https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/52155-55
ask or demand that FINRA cancel a perfectly usable Stock Ticker that would cost it millions to redo in an IPO
especially when said NYSE stock and US BIOAMER Inc. company have NOLS worth $320 million attached to them?
Who truly believes that LCY is that crazy or stupid?
I admire your work, but...
Please say, if you can, how BIOAmber Inc (US) can license /sublicense or do anything without a Board of Directors?
Is PWC going to do it?
Are you suggesting that someone bought those rights?
Regarding the TRUE Value (TV) of BIOAQ stock.
There is a formula for determining this, as follows:
TV is inversely proportional to the (amount * frequency * proportion of negative posts)/Share Price.
Some will claim this doesn't hold for a supposedly dead "bankrupt" stock.
Actually, it holds even stronger. Why? Because a truly dead stock should have no negative posts, much less a continuous flood of them.
It BIOAQ was truly a dead issue, its true value would reflect that as would they pointlessness of negative posts.
Please display a US Court document signed by a judge declaring BIOAQ bankrupt.
No such document exists.
There's no such thing as a conversion from Chap 11 to Chap 15.
Chap 11 was dismissed, not converted.
Words matter, especially when they attempt to transform projectile conjecture into facts.
QUOTE:
Even under CCAA, BIOAQ's common shares 1 would be cancelled. There is 2 no chance that BIOAQ common shareholders will receive anything, and their common shares 3 will be cancelled.
Term 1 "would" is a variant of "will" indicating certainty of a future proposition. No such certainty exists. The unbiased formulation is "COULD."
Term 2 "no chance indicates a second assertion of projectile certainty that is not supported by any presently known facts.
Term 3 will be is a 3rd assertion of unsupported projectile certainty not supported by any presently known facts. An unbiased formulation is "COULD BE."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Earlier CLAIM
QUOTE
Both the US Bankruptcy Code AND CCAA permit the common shares to be cancelled without any payment of any kind to common shareholders.
PERMIT is not the same as REQUIRE:
Note the complete absence of any mention of obvious facts mitigating AGAINST share cancellation (e.g., loss of NOLS worth $239 million USD).
The laws are applied equally to all filers. [Like the often repeated DECLARATION: This is the law, this sentence is makes it sound as if the claims that follow are balanced and true instead of biased and misleading.] Just like those two examples I provided of public companies under both Chapter 15 and CCAA (just like BIOAQ), the BIOAQ common shares will also be cancelled. Just like in those other two examples, BIOAQ common shareholders will lose 100% of their investment.
The common shares are not only not "safe", they are guaranteed to be cancelled.
The repetition of unsupported claims does not demonstrate, much less prove, any fact except bias.
The first "That is the law" statement that is True and correct.
CCA cannot cancel shares of an American Corp traded on an American stock exchange.
The battle of FACT V. FALSEHOODS on this board mirrors the US Political process in which those shrieking Falsehoods day after day, month after month simply repeat BIG LIES with greater frequency, audacity, and hysteria while those with FACTs simply present evidence.
The truth will out.
From the 7th Monitor's report:
E. UPDATE ON THE VISOLIS TRANSACTION
27. The Visolis Transaction closed on October 22, 2018. Total proceeds of US$4.34 million were received from the sale.
28. The Visolis Transaction is an en-bloc purchaseof assets of the three entities comprising the Company.
American Heritage Dictionary
en bloc adv.
in a lump or block; as a body or whole; all together
Since we know the En Bloc Sale closed in Oct.
--- what is being "restructured"?
Answer: the Terms of Sale required the restructuring of the 3 entities comprising the company which was sold as a condition of sale.
If this was not the case, then PWC would have simply distributed the proceeds of the sale to creditors and end-of-story.
You're projecting again.
The US BK court ceded jurisdiction over certain matters to Canada where the CCA has been in effect for over 9 months.
What the US court will NEVER do is, when the Canadian CCA-structure is complete, put the company back in Chapter 11 and declare it bankrupt.
No buyer with an IQ over 10 is going to split-off BIOA-US from BIOA-Canada and thereby lose the $239 Million in BIOA-US NOLS.
RE: the "Empty Shell" game with the truth.
Do the facts mean that it's time to stop playing an "empty-shell" game with the Truth?
Spending hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million dollars to "restructure" BIOAQ into a shell with no assets, makes no sense whatsoever.
You've confused the word "restructure" with "demolish" or perhaps "deconstruct."
Several posters here keep repeating the claim that after the CCA, the US district court will dissolve BIOAMBER INC in bankruptcy, regardless of the outcome of the Canadian PWC CCA.
They keep telling us:
IT'S THE LAW...!
IT'S THE LAW...!
I want to see that law -- please provide a link to it --- that says a Canadian CCA will be disregarded and a US Bankruptcy will proceed as if the Canadian CCA restructuring had never happened.
Winner, Winner, Chicken-Dinner.
Furthermore, the BUSINESS-AS-A-WHOLE offer would have to be accepted because ONLY it satisfies that interests of ALL stakeholders.
Two types of evidence are presented RE: BIOAQ.
1. Old, outdated liquidation "evidence" that has become obsolete in light of the unfolding facts of the company's sale as a whole.
2. New, unfolded evidence of the fact that company was sold as a whole.
Accommodating new evidence is part of logic, reason and the scientific method.
Sticking with old, obsolete evidence results in fighting world war II in 1979 as a soldier marooned on an island in the South Pacific.
Good Question!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL HOLDING $2MILLION USD OF STOCK IN A COMPANY IF IT WAS TO BE DISSOLVED?
WHY ARE PEOPLE CONTINUOUSLY SAYING SHARES WILL BE CANCELLED WHEN THE COMPANY HAS NEVER MENTIONED SUCH A THING...
WHAT IS ON THE LCY CONFIRMATION LETTER FOR THE VISOLIS "LOI FOR INVESTMENT IN BIOAMBER"?
THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ASKED.
BIOAMBER COULDN'T OF FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY IF THEY REPORTED THE Q1 EARNINGS...
THEY FILED TO AVOID REPORTING AND GET PROTECTION FROM THEIR CREDITORS TO RESTRUCTURE THE COMPANY.
VISOLIS SUBMITTED A LOI FOR INVESTMENT.
\
FACTS do not mean anything to people pushing falsehoods.
But please keep your FACTS coming. The rest of us appreciate your work!
Restructured Bankruptcies are the new thing -- Haven't y'all heard?
Is using the NOLs dependent on the existence of the shares?-- Please say how and cite a reference.
BIOAQ sale shareholders get their shares --- no need for any comp-payment, because the company will still be trading and shares will be have their market valuation.
Would you provide the link establishing BIOAq Cap-One credit line?
Where are the FACTS to support Cancellation? Show them to us or stop posting pure nonsense.
BROKEN RECORDs for Sale: Hit Single Shares=Zero
CSCS -- so why oh why would they cease to represent the creditors, if not because the arrangement has been concluded?
People keep posting that NO transaction has involved the company's publically trades shares or shareholders. Well, DUH, just how would that work exactly? Did the company own shares in itself as assets? It could have, but is there any record of it?
Please tell us how you "have been informed" by providing the authoritative source of your information.
The more FALSE a supposed FACT about BIOAQ Share cancellation is, the more the deluded insist that it's ABSOLUTELY true. Just like Global Warming.
Pwc does not control the REAL DEAL.--That's what I've been saying all along.
Does anyone truly believe that any group of Multinationals would allow their fate and/ deals to be determined by Pwc? ---- That's crazy.
FINRA notified to Drop Q -- Or new ticker.
Why hasn't Intercostal sold?
The BK was dismissed
Various kinds of Pre-BK agreements can be still in force