Replies to post #48673 on BioAmber Inc (fka BIOAQ)

[broken_clock]

By the way those requirements were on a list of terms for the call of bids for Sarnia. Not the sisp. So even with the sale of Sarnia there were qualified bid requirements.

[1manband]

How can you completely rule out a recapitalization strategy

Because there was NO bidders for recapitalization, and instead PwC LIQUIDATED the assets?

All the filings, including both Courts and the SEC, are 100% clear that BioAmber has LIQUIDATED. There is no recapitalization.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1534287/000119312518265192/d614167dex991.htm

Today's motion for an additional extension not only makes NO mention of any recapitalization, it clearly details the liquidation. The reason for the extension is to complete the liquidation.

It is clear as day.

[TenKay]

"The point is that the PWC required a subscription price from "qualified bidders" in a recapitalization strategy.

How can you completely rule out a recapitalization strategy when the PWC has reported the one of the leading bids included a post-close distribution following an equity raise?"

First the "subscription price" was required IF someone wanted to propose a recapitalization. No one did....which is why it went to liquidation.

The proposed "equity raise" was by ONE of the leading bidders, not THE leading bidder. As the Monitor's reports outline some of the bids had future contingent payments proposed as part of the purchase price. Those future contingent payments were of no interest to the secured creditors which is why LCY/Visolis became the leading bidder. They were the only ones willing to put all the money upfront.

Besides, had they included an "equity raise" and it was acceptable to the secured creditors it would have been an equity raise by the BUYER, not BIOAQ which would no longer own the asset. They were simply willing to provide some future contingent payment based on their ability to sell equity in the PURCHASING entity, which is now called LCY Biotechnology Inc.