BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Longstrongsilver]

Short answer no it wouldn’t need another qualifier. 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. 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? 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