I understand this whole KERP charge argument. Here’s the problem with that.
1) first one needs the ASSUME “all amounts owing” means that the maximum amount of the KERP was what was actually paid. The problem is that there is nothing else that supports that assumption. The “amount owing” could have been $1.
2) but then one has to make the next leap of logic that somehow that would then mean that ALL the creditors (secured and unsecured) got paid. Again, the problem is there is nothing that supports that assumption that they got paid...and that is most certainly something that would have to have been disclosed by the Court.
3) and then finally if all the creditors got paid that somehow that means the equity holders are going to get something. Great assumption but we are now 3 assumptions away from this notion of “amounts owing have been paid”.
So like a few other things in this debate over BioAmber’s fate Iike “best interest of stakeholders”...while some tortured logic or serial assumptions or misunderstanding leading to some of these arguments, a lot of folks may be scratching their heads when the stock is cancelled and wonder what they missed.
The unsecured claims have not been paid
Only a portion of the secured claims will get settled.
...and when the remaining debt is expunged by the Delaware Court the equity will be cancelled as well.
And a lot of “connecting of the dots” will vaporize in the moment of that reality.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
