BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Real McCoy]

I'm interested in the line at which it is perceived that the monitor had to stop in its presentation of material information.

It seems it is believed that the monitor chose to disclose key material information (expected to affect the share price) regarding some positive outcome of the proceedings but not any actual key material information itself. Was the "2nd transaction" protected by a confidentiality requirement or not? Certainly it was not if the word "exceptional" is proof positive that it exists.

Obviously this would represent abject failure to present a fair playing field to the investing public.