BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Koan]

Broker, broker, on the wall, who is the shortest of them all?

Of all the things that doesn't pass the sniff test, it's the following:

The only thing that person would have to do is show their broker the stock was dead and they’d close it. That’s it.

There are several issues with this, the first being not all brokers are the same. Brokers have their own internal standards along a number of fronts. The most obvious is when one broker disallows trading of a particular security, but another broker allows it, all of this being independent of whether or not the security is tradable according to the SEC. In other words, regardless of whether or not a security is tradable, a particular broker independently determines their own risk tolerance.

Again, if "your funds" are currently being held as collateral, determining the criteria necessary to close the short position and release those funds (say it with me class), is up to your broker.

Which brings up the second issue. At some point brokers will bump up against legal requirements set forth by the SEC and other financial regulations. This means brokers cannot just indiscriminately and forever hold as collateral an "investor's funds" unless they have legal leverage to do so. But what would give them legal leverage? In the case of margin accounts and short positions, it is easy to envision a scenario where a broker requires shares (pro tip: it is helpful to think of them as actual pieces of paper) in order to close out the short position, while at the same time does not have access to those shares. If FINRA suspends a CUSIP and at the same time there was no amendment to articles or share cancellation, then effectively the entire situation becomes "n/a" until some other material event occurs.

Now, what might constitute a material event that would relieve such a short position and allow a broker to release the funds being held as collateral? BioAmber shareholders ask their brokers to release their shares back to the broker in exchange for a tax loss against any other capital gains.

So, why not just start campaigning for shareholders to do this and take a tax loss? Is it possible that since you would profit from such an effort (again, you are a short investor in this scenario) that attempting to coerce shareholders to take tax losses would be illegal? Is that possible? And subsequently you want to present your arguments as far away as possible from suggesting shareholders take tax losses in order to mitigate against such liability.

How am I doing so far, Officer?

Which is precisely why you must maintain the fundamental argument that there are no open short positions. Because if there were and you were actively campaigning to coerce BioAmber shareholders into taking tax losses in order to close out and profit on your own position, you'd be dangerously close to the fire of putting yourself at legal risk.

So, in order to get out in front of all of this, you must maintain the following talking points:

1. There are no open short positions.
2. The shares have no value.
3. We are not interested in your shares.

Which is how we get to the crème de la crème, the cosmic bunny hole of cringe, the fourth cup in a shell game with no ball, the one, the only...drumroll...

4. We are only interested in shareholders psychologically "accepting" the outcome.

This couldn't get more cringe than if a crack pipe were pulled out of the pocket of a handcuffed detainee who says, "These aren't my pants!"

And after four years of the same repeated talking points and psychological gymnastics required to arrive at such cringe only points to the simple fact that shares are required.

So by all means, keep chastising and belittling BioAmber shareholders into the foreseeable future and you will be no closer to coercing shareholders into losing their shares than coercing them into losing their minds. BioAmber shareholders can do nothing for you now. Take it up with your broker.

Because after all, you always have the right to remain silent.

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY