BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Koan]

You do not know what you are writing.

I've stated many times on this very board, if you don't know what you're reading, seek the advice of a professional who can explain it to you.

Good for you. Anyone can say this. Here, I'll say it to you. If you don't know what you're reading, seek the advice of a professional who can explain it to you. This, of course, is the ultimate non-answer. Feel free to explain what you are saying, versus putting the responsibility on the reader to navigate the murky waters of your semantics. Take that as professional advice.

9th Report - Section 26.- : Relating to BioAmber Sarnia Inc.

No. "Relating to BioAmber Sarnia Inc." is absolutely incorrect according to PwC themselves. The word "Company" (with a capital "C") specifically means all three companies, e.g. BioAmber Inc. (where the shares are), BioAmber Sarnia Inc., and BioAmber Canada Inc. So when PwC says, "sale of the Company", they are referring to all three companies. This information is so critical that PwC defines it at the top of each report:



Accordingly, since BioAmber Inc. is the US Parent company and sole shareholder of BioAmber Sarnia Inc. and BioAmber Canada Inc., a "sale of the Company" must necessarily include BioAmber Inc.'s shares (as a company) in the subsidiaries it owns, namely BioAmber Sarnia Inc. and BioAmber Canada Inc. Shareholders own shares in BioAmber Inc., and BioAmber Inc. itself owns shares in its subsidiaries. Note line item [6] from the Pinsonnault judgement:




Next.

Everyone knows what happened to the operations of the company.

Which "company"? Because when you write it with a lowercase "c" (is that on purpose?), you could be referring to any one of three separate legal entities.

Further monitor reports also clearly state that the "sale of the company" nor any of the subsidiaries did not progress.

You did it again. Why are you keeping the word "company" in lowercase? Which company?! Do you know what you are writing? You suggest readers seek professional advice and that's exactly what you should seek as you are either playing games or you are woefully incompetent.

Now, you and others have continued to argue that there was no "sale of the Company". You must, at minimum, account for Section 26. in the Ninth Report. Did PwC make an error on Section 26? Did they actually mean to use another word, such as "liquidation of the Company", or "asset sale of the Company"? Or did they mean to say, "sale of BioAmber Sarnia Inc." or "sale of BioAmber Sarnia Inc.'s assets"?

Note that if PwC makes an error they have a responsibility to correct it before the court, in particular any error that is material to creditors or other stakeholders. This is easy enough to understand in a case where PwC might make an error on a particular number, for example if they reported the assets have a bid for 43,340,000 USD, when in fact they meant 4,340,000 USD. PwC would have to cite the error and correct it, otherwise in failing to do so and omitting such a correction they would risk being liable for gross negligence or willful misconduct.



At no future time did PwC cite and correct Section 26. from the Ninth Report, i.e. "sale of the Company".

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY