I've always thought:
1. Mr Eno and Mr Dugar with perhaps someone from LCY met in late 2017 to plan out how to restructure BioAmber's finances.
2. The outcome of the Taiwan trial for LYC had to be unexpected.
3. The fact that PWC was appoint a "Trustee" on May 3, with the shareholder meeting having been canceled and before the CCAA process began, appears to be consistent with a prior plan.
4. In this context, the CCAA process was a bit of a sham, if not a complete sham, if it were the case that Eno chose to stick with the BioAmber/Visolis deal of late 2017, if there actually was one.
5. And ... What likely "saved" that deal was the arrival on scene of KKR, whose motives might have been to save LCY or expand LCY's position in the market, giving the emergent opportunity. Shareholders weren't involved. The CCAA process provided legal confidentiality with a speedy process, and interested parties being none the wiser.
I wonder of the Board of Directors were content to leave all the activity required to execute "a" plan in Eno's hands, or if they were advised in advanced of everything that transpired.
Perhaps former BioAmber V.P. Huc who had left in 2017 might have known in advance, since he seems to have been silent when his new company's bid was passed over without comment. Certainly, the shareholders weren't apprised of any part of Eno's plans before they occurred. I'd be willing to bet that Judge Pinsonnault likely was not apprised of the original notions Eno, Dugar, and LCY had to "restructure" BioAmber's finances. In the last analysis, given unexpected events, they had to adjust their plans and do so in more than desirable secrecy, at least from the shareholders' viewpoint.
