CCAA allows an insolvent company to pursue a reorganization while there is a “stay” in place that prevents its creditors from taking action. When BioAmber first entered CCAA they were attempting to re-organize, re-structure or refinance the company and do so without the creditors coming in and doing it for them. I.e the “petitioner” was the company not a creditor or group of creditors.
At the end of July it was announced that the attempt to “sell the company” (which would include a restructuring, reorganizing or refinancing) was unsuccessful. This was first disclosed in a PR from the company (and the stock price collapsed as a result) and then in the Third Re-Stated Order Of the Court.
It then went to liquidation...which is EXACTY the word used multiple times in the Third Order.
At that point, PwC was given full control of the company. As a result, the officers and the directors of the company resigned and the plant was shut down at the end of August.
A second sales process as undertaken, this time entertaining bids for the assets of the company. The successful bidder was a joint venture of Visolis and LCY who paid $4.3 million for the plant as a whole. When that transaction closed on October 22, BioAmber Inc...and by extension it’s equity owners (shareholders) NO LONGER had ANY ownership interest in that operating asset. When that asset was sold along with the other “property” listed on Schedule 1.1, very little was left. BioAmber Inc. will receive $222,300 from the Visolis transaction and wherever value is left in the US “assets” in MN...which the Monitor characterized as “deminimus”.
In addition, the Monitor has stated explicitly that there is no transaction involving the shares of the company nor is any anticipated.
There has been no SEC filing regarding any prospectus or tender offer for the shares of the company and there has been no component of such referred to by the courts.
Now some like to believe there is some NDA hiding all this good news...but anyone who understands security laws and bankruptcy laws in both the US and Canada (BIA and CCAA) knows that such a thing cannot be kept secret.
But the “secret” characteristion is the only way the lack of any such disclure could be explained...when the alternative is that in fact there is no such transaction.
How that narrative survives the conclusion of CCAA with no evidence of another transaction, or when proceeds pick back up in Delaware and ends with the share cancellation will be interesting to see. ;-)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
