Bioamber is licensing it's technology, Lcy doesn't own it.
do you think that's why the actual patent agreement says it doesn't "decrease any rights or interests of either the Vendor (BioAmber) or Purchaser"?
Surely you would agree that the liquidation was part of the sale of the Company's operations (no one is going to admit to second transaction right??). Given that the sale of assets would be a Section 167 transaction assigning Visolis/LCY as operators of the business. After all (LOL) why would PwC be opening bank accounts to cash items payable to the Company or issue any payment which they believe is necessary or useful to the Company's operations? Ask any of the Bioamber "experts" and they'll all say the Company has no assets so they couldn't possibly have any operations right!! OH IT'S SO TRANSPARENT JUST LIKE PwC SAID.
Doesn't decrease the rights of the Vendor! Payments useful to the Company's operations (which doesn't exist) and has no employees or assets lol. The only other transaction mentioned has forecast fees attached to it and is described by the Monitor as the sale of Company...but hey there will be an argument about what that means too!!!
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.
