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.
I like your messages, Smattchew! Very constructive.
I believe it is the case that the Canadian Government invested in BioAmber early on. I don't think anyone has discussed, at least in the last couple years, how much the Government invested or if it was involved in the effort to refinance it. We know that Rick Eno met with Deepak Dugar in late 2017 to map out a plan. I suspect the plan fell through after Bowie Lee and LCY in April 2018 were found guilty of manslaughter related to an industrial accident . A May 2018 meeting to discuss the future plans with shareholders was canceled. Can you shed any light on these early events?
Howdy, Glider! I liked your comment here. Thoughtful. Yes, now entering our sixth year waiting for details to be resolved, if KKR doesn't cough up what's our due, Karma shall be unkind to that company. We're still here because we believed in the technology, given the desire and the politics to move away from fossil fuels. There are things going on in the background about which most folks have no idea. I expect things will clear up in the next couple months. Then, Karma may well become less abstract and more practical.
It's always been my belief that Rick Eno met with Deepak Dugar met in the Autumn of 2017 to map out a plan to restructure BioAmber's finances after the disappointing revenue results of 2015-2016. They must have had a plan, since they scheduled a shareholder meeting in May 2018. This is history.
I also believe the LCY was part of the plan. Both men knew this company. Unfortunately, its owner, Bowie Lee, was convicted in April of that year for deaths resulting from an industrial accident in Taiwan. So financing from LCY was out of the picture. Ostensibly, it appeared to be good fortune that BioAmber's plant was in Canada. It's CCAA process was designed to help companies in BioAmber's situation. Unfortunately, both men also knew PWC, a company with a less than stellar reputation for integrity in the space in which it operated. I don't expect Judge Pinsonnault had experience in dealing that PWC.
So in comes KKR. When folks did their due diligence in late 2018 and during 2019, it was a different world than that which followed, starting in January 2020. The judgments made during the first two years provided expectations that may have been difficult to maintain in the years that followed. But KKR has the financial power to stick to "the Plan," so to speak. Don't forget, U.S. two judges died during the process that led to the discharge of the BK as well.
Presently, there is a path to payment for our shares. I think it would be in the interests of KKR to release the funds they originally set aside for this purpose. Perhaps they think they can outwait us. I think we're tougher than that, certainly tougher than they think we are. Perhaps, their E-Staff, and we know General Petraeus is on it, don't think we have a grievance. We do. And it's time to redress it.
In biowin's link to CSCS's post dated January 23, 2019, it clearly specified that BioAmber, Inc., still owned all the patents. BioAmber, Inc., the U.S. based home company had a filing for bankruptcy DISMISSED in October, 2018. In the same month, according to the NaySayers, "all BioAmber assets" were liquidated in a final deal for $4.34M, OK'd by Judge Pinnsonault.
Where's the contradiction?
1. The "deal" was done.
2. The "shares were safe."
3. BioAmber, Inc., held onto all the patents, pending the financial restructuring.
4. KKR was the owner of the last resort of the Sarnia Plant, after playing Angel financier for LCY BioSciences.
We might ask: What did LCY BioSciences do with the $1.56B proffered by KKR in the summer of 2018? We can surmise that there's a second plant operating outside the USA. I haven't done the research on this. Isn't Thailand the location of the second plant? Just asking.
I think we can assume that our shares are safe. CSCS, biowin, and others have provided the information and the data to back up these conclusions.
Meanwhile, in an iron-eagle post of June 14, 2023, he lists a section from the 9th PWC report, which indicates, "certain employees at BioAmber" were retained to assist with issues "relating to the ... sale of the Company." When were these costs incurred? Just askin'. Were "certain employees" helpful in setting up operations at a second plant? If after October 2018 ... we can deduce that the sale wasn't completed. That says a lot.
As everyone knows, there's been a lot going on in the world for the last three years or more. When the dust settles, I think we can be sure of this: Green, biodegradable technologies will be riding high on the waves, and BioAmber will be right there in the lead group. Those who held onto their shares will have good reason to celebrate.
We've learned that KKR now owns LCY Biosciences. De facto KKR owns BioAmber's technology. Being a company whose holding earned $244B last year with a value of $700B, it would seem strange that Mr Eno would sell off all BioAmber's assets for $4.34M. Pretty good catch for KKR. Of course ... there's gotta be a catch. Especially with BioAmber, Inc., again popping up now.
Howdy, Trader! Let me just answer one question you ask, namely: "Why'd they go bankrupt?"
You've been following the discussion since 2018, right? Why do you ask this question? (No this is not my answer.)
First, we know that, in principle, a cheaper product that is a substitute for a more expensive one has a good chance to make it in the market, barring any skullduggery by established companies who want the new product to fail.
I know you must know the answer to your question, so why pose it? It's like asking, "How did the Chinese economy rise so quickly after the turn of the Millennium?" You gotta know a few facts.
Our discussion here arose in the context of the "Peak Oil" assumptions in the last half of the 20th century and the "Global Warming" debate ... ultimately modified to "Climate Change," with "warming" assumed to be the reason for the change ... so corporations running the world could continue to make money with the status quo ... Well, surely you see that point: BioAmber's technology is a cheaper substitute for legacy energy products and for its use as a biodegradable substitute for other petroleum-based chemicals, which are NOT biodegradable.
We also know what occurred in 2016 and 2017 that squeezed BioAmber's expected revenues. The prices of oil which had been over $100/bl dropped precipitously to under $40/bl and the price of corn sludge rose, giving debtors a reason for calling in debts. This is exactly what Dallas, TX-based oil-country bank, Comerica, did. Then the price of oil rose over 50% again through the present, except for 2020, the "pandemic" year. Meanwhile, the price of corn at $3.6/tn doubled in 2021 and thereafter.
During 2017 it was not possible to predict future prices for those products that succinic acid is a substitute for. Personally, I had faith in the technology, as do many others. Eno must have thought that the future was brighter, assuming calling a Shareholder Meeting would outline a plan to move forward. That's specifically the reason why he was hired: develop an efficient plan for moving forward. By Jan 2018 the price of oil was back over $60/bl. Comerica had not called in its debt until March. There was reason to believe that the tide was turning in BioAmber's favor.
The bankruptcy debate, then, is essentially moot. Those whose holdings are still listed in their broker's reports know that BioAmber, Inc.'s, BK filing was "Dismissed" not discharged. On the other hand, PWC through the Canadian CCAA process does not seem to have been totally honest in its reporting. In addition, in this forum, events we all know about are interpreted in contradictory ways, or out right denied. One example: the issue whether Eno bought 400K shares at the end of July 2018 or not. Or another, the implicit violation of the CCAA process by revealing then deleting two bidders on the Website.
I think we're at the stage where we can say, "Think what you want." What is clear today is that BioAmber's technology lives on, and so apparently does BioAmber, Inc. I don't think these two facts are debatable.
And you believe all bids were qualified? ... and no potential bidders were steered away from bidding with some phony reasons concocted by Eno and Dupak?
Really?
How could the original Visolis/LCY bid be fully qualified? Considering ... uh:
1. Visolis didn't have the funding for a truly major qualified bid ...
2. LCY, just off a guilty verdict in a Taiwan manslaughter trial ... you're saying nothing stood in the way of their bid participation? Like ... when was sentence passed? And what was the sentence? And would the sentence have any impact regarding LCY's qualification for the bid? You're saying there was no ... hmmm ... uh .... Collusion among the parties based on the late 2017 conference meetings?
I truly don't know or recall all the answers to these questions presently. I'm just askin'. All might have gone according to plan ... except for the LCY verdict. Surprise! What to do? Well, one thing: cancel the Shareholders' Meeting.
Think about it.
We all know that KKR, in the middle of the Summer, AFTER all the bids were dealt with, provided financial backup for LCY in the order of $1.56B. Uh ... wouldn't that make KKR the "hidden bidder" of the last resort? Did that follow Canadian CCAA procedures? And Eno, knowing KKR's interest ... couldn't he demand on the record more money than $4.34M? Noting that BIOA had a better future prognosis than the drop in oil prices and rise in corn prices indicated in 2016, EVERYBODY had to know the future import of BIOA's technology. Even Comerica calling in the debt ... that seems ... contrived.
Hey ... Don't call me a "Conspiracy Theorist." A lot of former "conspiracy theories" these days are turning out to have been true. Besides, I'm just askin'. You can't sweep these questions under the rug.
Come on, man! Get real!
Which Federal judges are you talking about?
One judge, alas, I forget his name, died in May/June 2019, before he could sign off. The next judge who got the case, didn't being working on it until she returned from vacation, in September/October 2019, and she reportedly started reviewing documents from the very beginning of the case. She also died in early 2021, or thereabouts, BEFORE rendering a decision?
I'm sure someone here knows better than I the actual dates when the judges died, and when a new judge was handed the case.
So ... Which judges are you talking about?
Illegal dealing?
Looks like Mr. Dugar was wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Wonder if Eno knew. Also ... Did Dugar or PWC violate any NDAs? What did/does Judge Pinsonnault know?
I gotta go ... but your message here IS NOT ...
... an answer to my response to you about your post #134008 & 134034, where you provide an misleading interpretation of the JOINT MOTION that the court dismissed.
It's folly to try to argue every issue that appears on this forum in a single response, and I don't. In post #134033 I tried to provide clarifications to your red-herring posts. That's all.
Normally, Sir, I would assume you could comprehend what is being said here. The reasoning is clear:
1. It's a "JOINT" motion by BOTH Parties
2. Both request to dismiss the original action requested from the court.
3. Since Both Parties have reached THE AGREEMENT, dismissing the case with prejudice will ensure that one of the Parties cannot come back and reopen the case.
4. They ask to Court to keep jurisdiction ... uh ... just in case it happens that somehow the matter is revisited: the Court will have a record of dismissal, militating against any future effort to revisit the issues.
5. It doesn't say who prevailed in the matter, but since Both Parties reached an "settlement" agreement, we can assume both parties had something to gain or to obviate by settling now.
This is how I read the Joint Motion. Are you saying you ... uh ... actually read it differently?
And ... as Gold prospector notes below ... "Settlement Agreement was fully executed, triggering various obligations as stated therein."
If you can't answer the questions, your answer is impertinent and moot.
Gotta go! Have a good rest of the day.
Sir, apropos your statement, " ... none of that has anything even remotely to do with or about BioAmber," whether this is True or False depends on 1) Who the parties are, and 2) What the "Parties' Settlement Agreement" stipulated. What's the answer to these two questions?
It's probably significant that the "Parties" request the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to retain jurisdiction over the Parties. Now why do you think that is?
Enlighten us, if you can.
Thank you very much for this info. Whatever else others might incorrectly believe, it's hard to doubt that Eno knew and discussed options with Dugar in 2017. Secret deals are one thing; but publicly getting BioAmber's assets for $4.3M is quite another ... unless they knew each other.
Also ... once we learned that governments were involved with promoting forward-looking technologies, we had very good reasons for hanging on to our shares. More so, since we learned of some cigar-room discussions already in 2018.
Your due diligence has been impeccable!
Hmmm. Really, now! "You have no idea if they have ever spoken about anything at all."
Wanna bet?
Like Sherlock Holmes said, "It's elementary."
A little logical deduction goes a long way!
Hmmm. How did we figure it out? That they met? Uh ... Mmm ... Well, there was a conference in San Francisco in September 2017 and another in Sarnia in November 2017 covering subjects that concern the technologies both BioAmber and Visolis were working on. We know Eno went to San Fran, Dugar's stomping ground; and we can surmise that Dugar came to Sarnia, the location of BioAmber's facility.
Not to hard to figure out that they likely met in 2017.
Eno and Dugar never made a public statement confirming or denying that they met and/or what they discussed. But we know Eno was hired to try to restructure BioAmber's financing, not liquidate the company. The fact that Comerica called in a debt in March 2018, 3 months after the Sarnia Conference had to have taken Eno by surprise, since he had scheduled a shareholder meeting. For all we know, some finance plan was already in place, but by March Eno faced new circumstances. If Eno had a plan, presently we don't know about it, what it was. That makes it still secret, in accordance with the meaning of the word.
Come on, man! It's elementary!
Well ... uh ... on the subject of "secrecy" (and banks) ...
I presume you never heard of Jekyll Island. I mention this ONLY to make a point about secrecy.
Uh ... You wouldn't know if anything was done in "secret". Why? Because it's s-e-c-r-e-t.
... Like the meetings between Eno and Dugar in late 2017 and "secret" before canceling the shareholders meeting and before the initiation of the the CCAA process and the appointment of PWC as the court monitor.
T-h-i-n-k is always good before making a blanket universal statement.
Seems like Mr Dugar, based on your great research, has been wheeling and dealing over the years. I'm wondering if Visolis isn't a front for an Indian company or big-time investor. Lotsa traveling and legal issues involved in setting up Visolis operations across the continents.
Certainly, the desire to develop substitutes for petroleum is worthwhile. On the other hand, Dugar's list of associations includes ... uh .. PWC. Wouldn't that be something to wonder about? It's not clear what Dugar's initial technical objectives were.
We did learn that Eno and Dugar knew each other prior to 2018. By then it ought to have been clear that BioAmber's product was worth expanding production.There's doesn't seem to be a direct link between Eno and Dugar and KKR. But Dugar knew of LCY. And KKR, keeping track of developments in the biochemical industry, knew Bowie Lee.
It appears that the relatinoships were all there to keep BioAmber's technology moving forward.
What is clear based on your research, and efforts by other forward thinkers, is that BioAmber's technology has intrinsic future value. It's product is not like another energy drink, computer printer, or even a prospective gold mine. Governments everywhere would like a substitute for oil. Very likely Dugar had training such that, in 2017, Eno found him worth working with to forge a partnership aimed at keeping the technology alive, while Dugar found Eno had the management skills to work him to keep Visolis viable.
Of course, this is only part of the story, but it explains a lot.
As a courtesy, let me respond to your message, and let it be my last comment on this matter.
For Eno NOT to have taken advantage of the initial 500K grant would have been irrational. He vested all in the first month; he likely would have exercised some of his vested shares before years end. He could not have foreseen the outcome of what transpired in 2018. Period.
BioAmber had a couple years of bad revenue results due to factors outside the company's control, namely, the rise in oil prices and the fall in corn prices. This could not be expected to continue, especially if one understood the cause of the oil price rise, and Eno had a background to know. In short, BioAmber's technology still had a future, and it was a "protected" technology.
We may postulate that Eno was hired to EITHER exercise a Board-of-Director plan to save BioAmber via a merger with another company OR come up with his own plan to attain the same goal. Events in the last half year of 2017 indicate that such was the case. He certainly met with Visolis during this period, likely even LCY. Bids or complaints about the CCAA process during 2018 from other interested parties were regarded as "without merit" ... uh ... by PWC. So it seems he had a plan.
Eno set up a Shareholder Meeting likely to explain what was going to happen. It's reasonable to believe the plan included a merger with Visolis/LCY ... before the Taiwan case against LCY resulted in a guilty verdict. Perhaps KKR was involved from the start. (I don't know.) Then, any number of other reasons, the Shareholder meeting was canceled.
So ... Between September 1, 2017 and March 1, 2018, the future plans for BioAmber appeared to be on schedule. For Eno to decide NOT to exercise ANY of his 500K options would be irrational. Actually, if memory serves, it was only AFTER March 1, 2018 that Comerica Bank called in its debt, placing BioAmber on a different path than the path Eno started with in September 2017. Comerica's action was a trigger for a completely different set of circumstances than those Eno had planned for.
For your statement, "Eno purchased NO Shares of stock. He owned NO shares," is a requirement for the conclusion that some have made that BioAmber shares have no present value. It is a statement of faith. Here's one problem: It would take Eno from March 1, 2018 to March 1, 2021 for him to vest ALL the shares in his second grant of 500K shares, vesting monthly from March 1, 2018. Yet his share count is listed on documents far earlier than March 1, 2021.
How do you account for this?
Do you best.
Let Mr Eno make a public statement validating your assertion. My comments on this matter end here.
Thank you for this information. I appreciate it. Now ...
When Mr Eno was hired, he received his base salary of $500K/yr plus 500K common stock options which he could exercise at any subsequent point in time of his choosing, correct?
Thus, on March 1, 2018, Eno optimally had his salary plus 500K share of BioAmber stock, assuming he exercised his full option before that date. Correct?
On March 1, 2018, Mr Eno received a second grant of 500K share of common stock options, exercisable at a rate of 13,889 per month, correct?
So ... how many shares would he be able to vest between March 1, 2018 and October 1, 2018, October being the month when the CCAA negotiations were finalized. What? May I propose roughly 97,223 shares? Could this be right?
Let's hypothesize this: Eno requested or vested a full 100K shares to cover the few days in October before "negotiations" were formally finalized with the purchase of BioAmber assets by one of the bidders. Given this hypothesis, he would have had 600K shares owned, all of them being option-vested shares. In short, at this point in time, every share Eno owned were based on hiring grants. True?
HOWEVER, Mr Eno ALSO purchased 400K shares from the open market in late July 2018, giving him 1M shares of BioAmber common stock owned, when all was said and done in October 2018.
I think this correctly fits the record we have today. Otherwise, how do YOU account for the unaccounted-for 400K shares?
Now I know you don't believe he purchase 400K shares in July 2018. I can't help that. Such a purchase, however, fits the record. Back in 2018, I was on the BioAmber case every day until early roughly Spring 2019, when other matters interrupted my own "diligence" effort. As it is, I distinctly recall and verified to my satisfaction at the time that Eno purchased 400K shares. I kept record of most things that occurred. But "proof" of Eno's purchase is not in my records. Let me be honest about this: It's not that I don't wish to, but I just don't have the time to go nosing around to find proof of Eno's purchase to satisfy you or any other forum member who's made this an issue. It's a fact I postulate, but in the broad scheme of things, it's not that important to spend time to satisfy all the naysayers.
Most importantly, however, whether I am right or wrong, is that NOW most of us agree that by the time Eno resigned, or shortly thereafter, he possessed 1 million shares of BioAmber common stock. If Eno knew ... during the summer of 2018 ... that BioAmber was doing to go bust, why would he even continue to purchase his monthly option allotment of 13.8K shares? And if he didn't purchase any shares after March 1, 2018, since he knew BioAmber would be liquidated before the year ended, why would he add to his initial grant of 500K options? We can account for an additional 100K shares, that's it.
Even if Mr Eno has a formal BioAmber 500K Grant Certificate framed on his office wall, would he spend the monthly amount to purchase an additional 500K shares as he oversaw the sinking of BioAmber into the depths of oblivion, as some folks believe is the case? Unless he wanted his Certification to read "One Million Shares." (Psst: He could not get to 1 million without a market purchase.)
In short, sir, you provided the details related to his stock grants. How do you account for the fact that the record shows he has 1 millions shares today?
Ego causam meam finire.
Tell me .. what is the difference between "owned shares" and "share options"?
Once you answer that, tell me .. are "share options" owned?
Thanks for your attention.
Who wanted proof that Eno owned 1M shares? ... uh ... 400K more than his 600K options, which he purchased at the end of July 2018. Doubt his purchase, making him the 6th largest insider shareholder, but you can't question that he increased his options by 400K ... and you must deny that Christmas comes in July.
Thanks for providing these items! Check out #28 in doc dated 07022019. Whatdya think? Couple others here and there like it.
I might be wrong about this, trader, but two things come to mind, given your comment.
1. As I recall, noting that (due to an international dispute involving whether to adjust the system of international trade payments ... uh .. involving the "petro-dollar") the price of oil -- for which BioAmber's technology is a substitute -- rose. The price was not a "natural" rise. It was an anomaly. Given this fact, one of the main creditors, a bank headquartered in Dallas, push the "pay me" button. Lotta oil companies HQ'd in Texas. Given BIOA's reduced revenues, the Board deduced in 2016-17 that they could not deal with their debt.
However 2. ... given the international political movements regarding sustainability and climate change, governments had an interest in "saving" BioAmber's technology. Big Corporations would not get away with just squashing it ... this time. In fact, the U.S. Energy Dept. and the government of Canada had sponsored BioAmber's technology. They knew its value. They weren't going to let BioAmber's technology die.
One of the facts of life with competition by companies trying to bring new technological products to market is the fact that "Bigger Fish" eat the "smaller fish" ... oooops, I mean larger, well-financed "old-technology" corporations often buy up new potentially competing companies ... JUST SO they can eliminate the new technology. A study of the dot.com era will show this. Indeed, the battle between Thomas Edison and Nikolai Tesla is another classic case in point: Those companies funding Edison who saw profit-making in electricity had no interest in promoting Tesla, who believed in "free energy." They saw to it that he didn't get funding once they know what he was up to.
So the first thing to comprehend is that contemporary political interests favor saving BioAmber's technology. It's technology covers a lot of territory.
Now ... let's say that shareholders were scammed and lost their invests in the manner's in which the naysayers here often elude to. Would that slow down or speed up the adoption of the technology? We want folks to invest in new technologies in the coming years, not hold on to their money, because they expect to be scammed. (I know Gen David Patreaus (Ret.), now a KKR partner, is a forward thinking strategist. And we know KKR is in the thick of what's going on with BioAmber's technology.)
Doesn't matter what opinion you have, time have changed. Governments today are criticized for wasting taxpayers' monies on losing technologies, often promoted by their friends. Obama suffered some of this, since he was a stooge of sorts. My point here: the U.S. Government and the Canadian government has a vested interest in ensuring that BioAmber's technology is a success. In addition, given the struggle for new technologies by countries that lack energy resources (and given the decline in U.S. moral high ground in recent years for stupid foreign policy decisions), other countries -- China, Japan, Europe (yeah, I know Europe is not a country) -- have an interest in developing and controlling a technology like BioAmber's. They want more people not less people to invest in it.
If you're aware of the "Big Picture" and given the Due Diligence of several BioAmber shareholders in recent years, there is reason to give credence to those who have argued that what's going on is a 363 Stalking Horse merger, with the shares of shareholders receiving future value. Let' call it a Reasonable Hypothesis. Then, given all the small, unusual details we know about ... calling, then cancelling a shareholder meeting to discuss the future, secret bidders revealed; the CEO purchasing supposedly defunct shares; apparent questionable activities by PWC; and several other unexpected events that slowed down the process -- given all these things, it would have been foolish for shareholders to have sold all their shares in the summer of 2018.
Nothing occurred "as usual" when BioAmber was forced to re-structure its finances.
You can disagree with this all you want. Consider famous plays in NFL Football History -- "The Catch," "The Immaculate Receptions," "The Music City Miracle." Things happen that change the outcome of the game.
You cannot judge the Fate of BioAmber with the eyes of traditional stock market experience. If you take a look at anomalies, it may make better sense. This is my view. So I still have my shares. I'm very comfortable with that decision, win or lose.
I've always thought:
1. Mr Eno and Mr Dugar with perhaps someone from LCY met in late 2017 to plan out how to restructure BioAmber's finances.
2. The outcome of the Taiwan trial for LYC had to be unexpected.
3. The fact that PWC was appoint a "Trustee" on May 3, with the shareholder meeting having been canceled and before the CCAA process began, appears to be consistent with a prior plan.
4. In this context, the CCAA process was a bit of a sham, if not a complete sham, if it were the case that Eno chose to stick with the BioAmber/Visolis deal of late 2017, if there actually was one.
5. And ... What likely "saved" that deal was the arrival on scene of KKR, whose motives might have been to save LCY or expand LCY's position in the market, giving the emergent opportunity. Shareholders weren't involved. The CCAA process provided legal confidentiality with a speedy process, and interested parties being none the wiser.
I wonder of the Board of Directors were content to leave all the activity required to execute "a" plan in Eno's hands, or if they were advised in advanced of everything that transpired.
Perhaps former BioAmber V.P. Huc who had left in 2017 might have known in advance, since he seems to have been silent when his new company's bid was passed over without comment. Certainly, the shareholders weren't apprised of any part of Eno's plans before they occurred. I'd be willing to bet that Judge Pinsonnault likely was not apprised of the original notions Eno, Dugar, and LCY had to "restructure" BioAmber's finances. In the last analysis, given unexpected events, they had to adjust their plans and do so in more than desirable secrecy, at least from the shareholders' viewpoint.
Added note to previous comment:
In a recent comment, I wrote that Mr Eno purchased 400K shares at the end of July 2018. Some folks tried to refute this by arguing that Eno's shares were all stock options. They were not. Sorry, foilks ... who believe and propagate this. You're just wrong.
In July 2018 Eno had 600K stock options If he had more when he was hired and reached a vesting point that he cashed out, I can't say. (I think he might have, but I'm not sure.) I can say that he purchase 400K shares in July 2018 at the market price, giving him 1M shares. We can only speculate what his motive was. Perhaps he just wanted to leave BioAmber with 1M shares.
My supposition that he intended to have 1m shares when leaving BioAmber is an Opinion. My statement that he purchased 400K shares in July 2018 is a Fact.
The only remaining question on this subject is: Being BioAmber's CEO, why would R Eno make a purchase adding to his options?
Good to know. All the evidence is that Eno and Dugar knew each other before May 2018. In addition, the $4.3 payment was not enough for what they got in return, so some kind of deal had to be in the offing, including the sailing in of KKR to save the day for "the plan" in the Summer of 2018. And both Eno and Dugar had prior dealings with PWC, which in itself raises issues.
By the way, thanks for all the great research great research you've done!
Anyone know what happened to CSCS, who stopped posting in 2020. I think he was the first to identify the 363 process here.
One more question:
Was Mr Dugar's meeting with CEO Eno in September or November 2017 to plan for "restructuring" BIOA's finances legal, and if they did meet -- one Conference was in Sarnia, so it defies imagination to assume they didn't meet after Eno was hired -- or was it legal to dump the other bidders?
In this context, why were two bidders listed and deleted on the same day, when the bidders were supposed to be secret? And what was the significance of Eno's purchase of 400K shares at the end of July. [Now I know there's been a debate about this. I personally saw a listing of the transaction. Or ... was that just a phantom purchase, and if so, why?]
By the way, I think Oracle placed a bid. Our DD guys said that contact during the bidding period only had to do with IT issues on site. But, judging from Oracle's Newsletter, Larry Ellison was clearly interested in pursuing entry into the BioChemical market. Consider the psychology of CEO competition ... over and above product diversity.
Come on, folks. $4.3M for all the patents and a facility that cost $40M. This is not Saturday Night Live.
Let us not forget:
1. Reports indicated that Rick Eno was specifically hired in 2017 to guide BioAmber on a path to restructuring its finances, after nearly two years where oil prices dropped and corn prices rose, having a calamitous reduction on the companies expected revenue.
2. Eno and Dugar (and likely an emissary from Bowie Lee) met at one of two conferences (or both) on Renewal Energy, etc., in San Francisco in September, and Sarnia in November ... plenty of opportunity to plan for a merger. Both had prior business with PWC. PWC had prior business with KKR.
Eno did plan a shareholders' meeting. He didn't have to reveal the plan in advance of it. Alas, Bowie Lee lost a trial in Taiwan.
I believe the plan was to save the company, and save the technology. BioAmber's product was acquiring attention.
Then came Covid ... and two judges passed away after 2018.
Finally ... with Eno holding at least a million shares ... the shares were never canceled.
Ah ... keep the shares, trust the plan ... and whatever adjustments had to be made during a tumultuous time. And trust some very good Due Diligence on the part of some very intelligent and optimistic shareholders.
Good message! Thanks!
There are a lot of very smart folks with traditional mindsets who can't wrap their minds around the fact that new, substitute technologies do not fit the received, expected paradigms on the Road to Overcoming Obstacles traditional, established companies place in their way.
There are also some very smart folks whose due diligence can discover new, rarely used paths to progress whereby new technologies successfully compete with or replace old technologies, whose continued, practicable use is antiquated, creating newly recognized, unexpected, and costly problems.
Here're a couple of questions: Do we need to continue to use petroleum and its refined, but non-biodegradable products, when we have at hand an ultimately cheaper, safer, and biodegradable replacement? and ... Can the legal (often extra-legal) stranglehold that companies controlling old technologies exploit to suppress new technologies abate and vamoose?
For shareholders, at least this one, the answer to the first question is, No. But ...
The answer to the second question is, Yes!
Uh ... (Hey, dog!) ... Would it have been LEGAL ... IF ... Mr. Eno (with PWC) and Dugar and Bowie Lee met in the Autumn of 2017 and agreed on a plan to sell BioAmber to Visolis/LCY before presenting it to shareholders (debtors, government patrons) OR squashing the deal and the shareholder meeting, when LCY got in legal trouble, with Eno and PWC holding the bag? Only to reject all the bids for the pending sale with the growing expectation that KKR, in search of controlling "Green Technology," would bail out LCY?
Just wondering. This is a plausible sequence of event, assuming Eno was hired to engineer a deal resulting in refinancing BioAmber. Did he keep the Board of Directors informed of all his moves? What role in a presumed deception might PWC have played, knowing both Eno and Dugar had prior association with the now embattled "professional services" firm?
But ... was it honest? Was it legal? Any possible juridical ramifications?
Hmmm. For the pessimists: How 'bout a good Hollywood movie script?
Think about it.
The debate of the outcome of BioAmber's fate during the summer of 2018 has run its course. Some of us have held on to our shares. Who cares? Why does anyone care that we do? In the broad scheme of things, it's our private business. We share "news" about relevant technologies and corporate events on this forum. That's why the forum exists. After the time that has passed since 2018, and considering the interceding events that occurred, no reason to continue a debate.
When studying human nature and personality, one school of thought suggests that there are two kinds of basic personalities: optimists and pessimists. Perhaps it's just that simple. As one shareholder put it, there's meaning to the words, "dismissed" and "discharged." Along with the history of Mr. Eno's legacy, starting with his hiring; his attendance at a couple conferences in the Autumn of 2017; perhaps a deal made, since a rise in corn costs and a drop in oil prices left BioAmber failing to meet its revenue targets for both 2015 and 2016; better 2017 results; the sale of 30M additional shares in Feb 2018; the scheduling of a shareholders' meeting in May 2018; then canceling that meeting; publicly identifying Visolis and LCY as inheritors of BioAmber's technology and facilities (in spite of the fact that LCY lost a manslaughter trial for an industrial accident in Taiwan); KKR's financial backing of the "deal" in August 2018; and, the presumed outcome of the Canadian CCAA process leading to a "dismissal" of U.S. BK in October 2018 -- this body of facts or underlying presuppositions give rise to optimism for the future of BioAmber technology or pessimism that technology two governments had originally supported failed in the marketplace.
Optimism presumes there is a third option beyond failure that ensures shares have continued value; pessimism presumes that failure is final.
Admittedly, it would be easy to conclude that BioAmber's market vicissitudes leading to its sale guarantees a market failure. Based on what we know. Alas, there is good reason for pessimism.
However ... based on what we know ... and based on what we don't know, for example: the effort to develop a sustainable alternative to petroleum; knowing that two judges died between 2019-2021 before they could sign court documentation (whatever it is); and knowing that there's an institutional process that would sustain a re-financing of the BioAmber technology, namely, a 363 Stalking Horse merger, are all reason for optimism. Indeed, there is reason to suspect that not all events that occurred in the background have been made public, not the least events related to the struggle that will determine who will control the technology geopolitically, meaning China or Canada/USA/France/The Netherlands.
We all have a right to our point of view, whether we're optimists or pessimists. We all have a right to defend out point of view. In the broad scheme of things, a courteous discussion is better than supercilious comments that add nothing to the discussion, other than elucidating the personality of the pundit.
Just my view.
Thanks for posting this data. Note: Other references to Eno's holdings posted today were signed in April 2018. Still lists 500K shares. A lot happened between April and the end of July AND between the end of July and October. Bottom line: he had to have added one more K shares, because by October, he ended up with 1M.
Referring to April reports, we cannot draw a logical conclusion based on data that is clearly outdated.
Eno left the field with 1M shares. If he gets paid, we get paid; if we get paid, he gets paid.
Pretty simple, eh?
Mr. McCoy, in the interests of maximum courtesy, I'll respond to your three incorrect statements, which here are taking on a veneer of being almost a religious mantra, for the last time. This particular issue has been addressed time and time again. We could say, "OK, Mr. McCoy, you win." If we did, you could retire from the field a victor, victor in animo tuo, if you will.
But historical facts are eternal.
1. Just a question to #1. Are you saying Mr. Eno's "Golden Parachute" when leaving BioAmber (or was he not a recipient of the "usual" golden parachute company executives customarily get, even in the case of bankruptcy) ... uh ... being the first thing companies find the funds to distribute -- you're saying that Eno's Golden Parachute was ZERO as in $0.00?
2. False. By the September 1, 2018, he had 1,000,000 shares. We presume he vested his options, since he already had shares in his portfolio.
3. Having 600K shares to vest by Summer's end, with "deal" not finalized until mid October 2018, and while BIOAQ was still trading, Mr. Eno rounded out his holdings to 1 million shares by purchasing 400K shares in July 2018. No reason to question my Integrity on this point. I'm just reporting the facts.
These are facts. Accept them or reject them. But there is no reason to return to this subject. If there's something you doubt, do your own Due Diligence and activate your discernment. I believe you'll find answers to your questions in the iHub record of messages throughout the summer of 2018. It may take some time to got through them all though.
Just a quick response, my friend.
Mr. Eno without a doubt purchased 400,000 shares in July 2018. I've seen the record of it. I saw the record of it at the time. As a matter of fact, it was puzzling to learn that he purchased 400,000 shares at the same time as he published a Press Release on the last day of the month that was ill-received at the time.
Trying to create a myth that Eno did NOT purchase shares in BioAmber is fruitless. It's one of the major facts that sustains the Due Diligence of several folks worked on in the months and years to follow. Just to add: there are undoubtedly good reasons for the delays we've experienced. The facts, even facts unrelated to BioAmber's case, are not hard to fathom, with just a little thought.
That may be true, Mr. McCoy. I know a lot of research has been done since October 2018. It's still hard to pin down exactly how the "restructuring" proceeded, even if it's your opinion that BioAmber was totally liquidated for $4.34 Million, about 1/33rd what the facility was worth, and future prospects for BioAmber's technology notwithstanding.
We also know that PWC went out of is way, some would say unethically, to hide what was actually going on. Personally, I'm convinced this is the case.
However, in addition other established facts I've alluded to in earlier messages, these are established facts.
1. KKR provided $1.56 "B"illion to LCY for its planned investment in BioAmber via a new company, LCY BioSciences.
2. LCY BioSciences now occupies the facility BioAmber build in Sarnia.
3. The LCY Group in Taiwan owns LCY BioSciences.
4. KKR owns the Taiwanese LCY Chemical Group.
Let me posit a hypothesis:
Mr. Eno had 600,000 vesting shares. But he did not serve a year to vest them. In addition, he purchased on the market 400,000 shares in July 2018, giving him 1 Million shares when all was said and done.
Here's three questions:
Q1: Is it your opinion that Mr. Eno directed his broker to delete the useless listing of BioAmber's CUSIP# and subsequence numerical from his portfolio?
Q2: Would he be still holding his share listing?
Q3.: Why would Mr. Eno BUY shares, when he knew, in accordance with your opinion, that BioAmber was liquidated ... uh ... when? By the end of July 2018, or were deals suddenly reached in August or September 2018.
Come on, Mr. McCoy! Try some logic. Indeed, there's a lot of emotion involved in analyzing and making market decisions. But when the veil of secrecy hovers over the facts, our only recourse is to rely on logic and discernment, not what appears to be superficial facts. Humanity believed the USA sent men to the Moon in 1969. You may believe it or not, but that is being seriously questioned these days, since the public was not privy to all the facts, and it's possible propagandists exploited that fact.
I'm just sayin' ...
Question: Wasn't Greenfield one of the "secret" bids, posted for a couple hours in June 2018, then .... ooops! .... removed? Do we know what happened to Greenfield's interest after that?
Howdy! As has been my suggestion in previous posts, and as you indicate here, the "holder of the shares" of the last resort would appear to be KKR ... as far as anyone could know now with any degree of verisimilitude. If as dalesio_98 suggets earlier, that LCY purchased the shares in midsummer 2018 (presumably with funds acquired from KKR), then it's logical to assume that KKR would -- even in the worst case -- know, if they sold them, where the share presently reside.
Given a move toward biodegradable products, and the value one would have as a substitute for petroleum, why would KKR give them up?
Bottom line is: a purchase of the shares during the CCAA process means purchasing ALL the shares, holding in abeyance payment to those who had shares in 2018. Guess who that is? ... Yup! Of course, as you know ... Us here, who still have shares listed in their portfolio.
Meanwhile ... just a note: Sorhay personally contacted representatives of the parties during that summer and later to validate his statements. Back in 2018 he was one of the shareholders who knew most about what was going on. We cannot ignore the Sorhay messages from the summer of 2018 onwards. And folks like I.E., biowin, etc., have magnificently added to the due diligence Sorhay provided.
Personally, I appreciate the time and effort all these folks have done, and made available to this forum. Continuing negativity is just obsessionally unreasonable.
Thanks for your comments. Been busy, so it took a few days to respond.
Right, good question. Who'll be able to take a battle to the "giants"? is a good question.
In a sense, it could start with current BioAmber shareholders ... in principle. I.E. just reminded us of the long-forgotten "secret bids" that were posted in June or early July, 2018, and immediately removed when PWC noticed the mistake ... or was it deliberately leaked? Who knows now?
Here's what we have going for us. I believe most of those who possessed shares at the end of 2018 still have them listed on their portfolios, despite a four-year effort to maintain a cloud of negativity about the viability of BioAmber, Inc., and its technology. Admittedly, we don't know exactly what's going on. Or at least I don't. But we know that succinic acid is being used to make products with BioAmber patents.
Our primary prospect is the fact that BioAmber technology is a technology of the future. It's not like, say, a blacksmith shop in 1910, or a new "energy drink" in a market saturated with tens of similarly products where competition is fierce. In the global marketplace, especially in places that lack natural energy resources, like Japan, say, succinic acid is golden, so to speak. Indeed, Mitsui made some kind of deal in 2017 to offset some of the financial issues the company faced when oil prices spiked.
My point is that those with an eye on the global marketplace, where several countries were working to raise their living standards, succinic acid would be something to keep alive and invest in, not abandon and liquidate.
It is notable that KKR joined the negotiations in the Summer of 2018. As a matter of fact, at the time, General David Patreaus, who commanded the Army's 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, later, the Multi-National Force that set up the Iraq security infrastructure, finally, U.S. Southern Command, was appointed Chairman of KKR's "Strategic Planning Committee." His experience in Iraq certainly, if nothing else, acquainted him with Energy Policy issues across the board for any market.
Don't you find it interesting that, even though we know KKR invested $1.56B to acquire BioAmber's technology, the outline and details of the "deal" or how the funds were disposed are still not fully public?
We have a forum participant with an obsession with the term, "liquidation," when the real obsession ought to be: knowing the value of BioAmber succinic acid technology, and knowing we invested in the technology and stuck to our decisions when BioAmber was working to restructure its financing IN SECRECY. Indeed, pulling from public awareness "sealed bids" made by PPT Global Chemical and Greenfield Global, Inc. (with Greenfield a Canadian company with a focus on renewable energy resources), are we to assume that these companies just decided to abandon all interest in renewable energy products at the height of the international "global warming" debate that blamed "fossil fuels" for much of the problem?
Keep in mind the international fight over the patents. We have companies from China, Japan, Canada, Europe, and the USA trying to get control of the technology. All we know is that Canada, China, Europe, and the USA had their foot in the door, so to speak, with acquiring the patents ... likely the plant in Sarnia being a secondary issue in the broad scheme of things. [I know, that's debatable.]
Let's just remember: in the broad scheme of things, BioAmber's accomplishments between 2015 and 2018 were major achievements, in spite of the Covid issue, and even the death of 2 judges in charge of overseeing the legal proceedings governing the financial restructuring of the company.
Like the fight over control of electricity at the end of the 19th century, you can be sure the fight to control the patents or for cooperative accommodation in producing succinic acid is historically momentous, no matter how it turns out.
My advice: Be patient, and thank the Lord for your shares!
Yessir! Awareness and discernment are critically important. As I indicated earlier, once you catch them in one lie, it's reasonable to question everything. And ...
Too many scams, like those that caused the Great Recession in 2007-2008 or the Crash of the S&L System in the 1980s go unpunished. [LIterally, thousands who were guilty of crimes got off scott free.] In the S&L case, the FBI submitted 11,000 criminal referrals to the Justice Department. Only 200 cases went to trial; only 50 were convicted. Zero who caused the Great Recession were even investigated ... except Bernie Madoff, who made off (for a few weeks) with a $billion or so, after scammng the scammers.
Alas, too many are too big to fail, too connected to punish. Capitalism cannot function when the economy is run by criminals; when the "free and easy" wheeler-dealers (like the dumpers and bumpers we're familiar with) erode Integrity in the system; and, when Institutions befriend the scammers.
Indeed, PWC should be investigated.
Once you Know ... you cannot Unknow!
Good things are coming!