Send PM
Followers 1
Posts 34
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/27/2022

Re: biowin post# 130832

Friday, 10/07/2022 1:03:14 AM

Friday, October 07, 2022 1:03:14 AM

Post# of 133588
Please correct me, if I'm wrong -- I'm sure our Canadian friends with shares know the answer -- but isn't it the case that the Canadian CCAA process is available mainly for larger corporations who actually seek to avoid bankruptcy and restructure their finances? It seems to me that, in principle, the CCAA goal is for a company to work with the court and its trustee to develop and implement a plan to ensure the company lives on.

If a corporations seeks to file for bankruptcy or if its lenders require it, isn't there a different legal process? I thought Canada has a similar legal "Discharge" process to that of the USA.

It seems to me that in the early days of Eno's canceling the Shareholder Meeting and pursuing new financing via CCAA, the goal was not to dismantle BioAmber as a viable company, but, given the utility of its patents and technologies, to build on its past successes, including getting a second plant. [Parenthetically, I seem to recall that in a worst case situation regarding a second plant, a Du Pont plant is Las Vegas was for a time available.]

I mention "past successes" because BioAmber does and did have the technology to develop into and stay a successful company. The cause of BioAmber's financial problems as perceived in 2017 were due to a fall in oil prices in 2015-6 and a rise in corn prices sometime before Eno was hired. And wasn't he originally hired for the original purpose of reorganizing BioAmber for the specific purpose of seeking new financing?

It is also the case, I think, that both Eno and Deepak had a prior relationship with PWC, which accounts for the court naming it as the court trustee to steer the company through the CCAA process, in spite of apparent conflicts of interest. Who's familiar with the BioAmber-PWC relationship enough to know if PWC always made decisions favorable to BIoAmber's interests?

Those who maintain that BioAmber is dead and its technologies gone -- and what value might accrue to its shareholders who stuck with the company as it had to endure unexpected events during the last five, six years is wishful thinking -- forget that, as you mention in your message, American bankruptcy was never declared, as the court affirms. In addition, during the summer of 2018, there were "secret" negotiations, whose substance are still not made public, that involved enough money for BioAmber to achieve its key objectives, even if the implementation of whatever results occurred took more time than usual. Whatever "deals" were made were made outside the purview of shareholders, after Eno canceled a scheduled meeting while PWC continued to keep the shareholders in the dark through the entire process, even as Eno purchased shares himself.

In fact, a "restructuring" had to have been a success -- one way or another, for the technology to be productive -- and the only question that remains for us is: what was the final deal, and how will our shares be compensated, after 4 years that included a pandemic and two judges on the case who passed away before they could sign off on the final outcome.