BioAmber Inc (fka BIOAQ)

[iron-eagle]

So now the claim is that these terms were used interchangeably when it came to Bioamber court proceedings and court filings?

I don’t think they took the care you would like as there were several instances in this where “company”, “plant” and “assets” were used interchangeably,

If they were used interchangeably why did the Monitor go through the lengths it did in every report to define what "the Company" means (all 3 corporations)? Because if "the Company" doesn't mean what they say it means; wouldn't they be perjuring themselves and misleading stakeholders of a public company? Shouldn't the definition stated mean what it says; especially in Court? Just agree there is conflicting information in the reports and perhaps you can see why no one is closing out their positions regardless of the nonstop hogwash intended to do so.

IE