Replies to post #56722 on BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[youngster-moon]

I love how they continue to refer to it as the Visolis transaction i didn’t know they were the only ones buying BIOAQ, second transaction still to come. We’ve already prove there was multiple SISP’s

[Longstrongsilver]

Except that’s not What they said. They said “from the sale of the assets” (loosely quoted) and maybe even later on changed to “from the proceedings” . They never said there’s nothing after those things are completed. The insistence by some that that’s what it means leads me to believe those assumptions are disengenious in nature. We “know” (believe at least) that there’s more to be revealed that will result in something for us. No cancellation fantasies on here are going to change that.

[HymanMinsky]

what does BOD have to do with a shareholder meeting?

[youngster-moon]

This is pretty simple to derive, common sense to anyone who has read all the documents and not snip bits

7.2- The Visolis transaction will only cover those following things, the second transaction will cover the contracts and the shareholders. Remember this was a joint venture between Visolis and LCY just not Visolis

7.5- Again the Visolis transaction won’t cover shareholders because the second transaction will. The Joint venture between Visolis and LCY bought just the assets in 2018 for tax purposes. The specifically use the phrase “Visolis transaction” because there is another transaction. What new company wouldn’t want a $7.5B contract with Vinmar

[youngster-moon]

Another addition to what you’ve said, the monitor said that there was no value for the shareholders from the Visolis transaction. They continue to choose and place words on purpose and perfectly. If there was no money for shareholders it stated there is no value for the shareholder a from the deal or from the transaction (meaning singular). Also, it’s amazing that there’s no shot for shareholders, no shot for in secured creditors, not even a good shot for some secured creditors, but it continue to trade at .0135, if this was clear as day it would be at no bid or .0001. Thank you for your opinion but your post has clearly been proved wrong multiple times by the pinned posts above

[CSCS]

Your post is misleading and contains false information without factoring the most update court documents.
Please provide a the link to "PWC directly stating shareholders are not safe?
Bioamber is not a debt ridden shell
Bioamber is not Bankrupt
They are in CCAA restructuring proceedings
All of my posts have current and relevant information and research specific to Bioamber and its proceedings. No generic "Bankruptcy 101" , "its the Law" or "Shares will be cancelled!" posts.

Shareholders are safe

Please read and research through all the court documents to get a better understanding of where Bioamber sits in its current restructuring proceedings

[HymanMinsky]

literally everything you have posted has been debunked

[JohnR767]

Why is this a sticky here?

[Homebrew]

Good post to sticky..Thanks for writing it.

[$ugar Glider]

Not an update... Please post relevant and factual data.