The debate of the outcome of BioAmber's fate during the summer of 2018 has run its course. Some of us have held on to our shares. Who cares? Why does anyone care that we do? In the broad scheme of things, it's our private business. We share "news" about relevant technologies and corporate events on this forum. That's why the forum exists. After the time that has passed since 2018, and considering the interceding events that occurred, no reason to continue a debate.
When studying human nature and personality, one school of thought suggests that there are two kinds of basic personalities: optimists and pessimists. Perhaps it's just that simple. As one shareholder put it, there's meaning to the words, "dismissed" and "discharged." Along with the history of Mr. Eno's legacy, starting with his hiring; his attendance at a couple conferences in the Autumn of 2017; perhaps a deal made, since a rise in corn costs and a drop in oil prices left BioAmber failing to meet its revenue targets for both 2015 and 2016; better 2017 results; the sale of 30M additional shares in Feb 2018; the scheduling of a shareholders' meeting in May 2018; then canceling that meeting; publicly identifying Visolis and LCY as inheritors of BioAmber's technology and facilities (in spite of the fact that LCY lost a manslaughter trial for an industrial accident in Taiwan); KKR's financial backing of the "deal" in August 2018; and, the presumed outcome of the Canadian CCAA process leading to a "dismissal" of U.S. BK in October 2018 -- this body of facts or underlying presuppositions give rise to optimism for the future of BioAmber technology or pessimism that technology two governments had originally supported failed in the marketplace.
Optimism presumes there is a third option beyond failure that ensures shares have continued value; pessimism presumes that failure is final.
Admittedly, it would be easy to conclude that BioAmber's market vicissitudes leading to its sale guarantees a market failure. Based on what we know. Alas, there is good reason for pessimism.
However ... based on what we know ... and based on what we don't know, for example: the effort to develop a sustainable alternative to petroleum; knowing that two judges died between 2019-2021 before they could sign court documentation (whatever it is); and knowing that there's an institutional process that would sustain a re-financing of the BioAmber technology, namely, a 363 Stalking Horse merger, are all reason for optimism. Indeed, there is reason to suspect that not all events that occurred in the background have been made public, not the least events related to the struggle that will determine who will control the technology geopolitically, meaning China or Canada/USA/France/The Netherlands.
We all have a right to our point of view, whether we're optimists or pessimists. We all have a right to defend out point of view. In the broad scheme of things, a courteous discussion is better than supercilious comments that add nothing to the discussion, other than elucidating the personality of the pundit.
Just my view.
