I see this was already roasted but given its dishonest and could succeed in garnering some false hope, I'll double down.
"Which is it? There are no NDA's or there is "only one"? The NDA pertaining to Crane was created after the alleged transaction closed."
Glad to see you are willing and able to nitpick this language. I hope you will be willing to answer my question below.
"NDA's don't let people lie. They simply provide that people, businesses, lawyers, or courts do not disclose certain material information to the public. That means not saying certain things. Lying means saying things which are not true. There is a GRAND CANYON of difference between the two."
Needless to say, an NDA does not allow you to say a company was liquidated if it was actually recapitalized or purchased.
"Ahhh, so now it is being framed as a "complete" liquidation. What is wrong with an "exceptional" liquidation? That would be more consistent with how the Canadian judge defined it. One could copy and paste the actual words the judge used, but it has been copied and pasted so many times it is almost embarrassing to highlight that "complete" has never been uttered by any judge in reference to BioAmber Inc.'s case."
You can read the APA and Monitors reports detailing the SISP attempt, Liquidation and approval, and subsequent lengths the Monitor went to to make sure shareholders understand they get nothing and come up with your own description of the liquidation. It was a complete liquidation, an exceptional liquidation, and a liquidation, in the same way your post below was complete garbage, exceptional garbage, and just plain garbage.
"The more plausible and common sense answer is that if BioAmber Inc. shares were off the proverbial table, then that would have been easily and publicly dealt with by LAW and in court through either an amendment to articles or an outright share cancellation.
Yet somehow, amazingly, magically, that has never happened.
Every board member, creditor, lawyer and judge involved in the BioAmber Inc. case has never signed off on any such cancellation or any such amendment to articles.
After all, since everything that happened here IS the LAW, why all the secrecy with the fate of the shares? Since it IS the LAW, any share cancellation or amendment to articles would certainly be PUBLIC -- IT CANNOT BE HIDDEN because THAT WOULD BE BANKRUPTCY FRAUD."
No one has any obligation to give you the closure you need in the format you choose to state you need it. FINRA deleted the ticker and terminally suspended the CUSIP. The Monitor told you. The Purchaser told you. The Company told you in its last press release, and there hasn't been a peep or financial statement in 3 years.
Question for you: did this "deal" go down in 2018 or does it remain to be done?
Note- if it went down in 2018 you'd have to explain how the shares kept trading into 2019 even though they were "purchased". And if its going down ahead, you'd have to explain who is negotiating it and approving it.
