Replies to post #98631 on BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Longstrongsilver]

Short answer no it wouldn’t need another qualifier. Speaking of things needed/unneeded. There is no reason to call the alleged only transaction “The Visolis Transaction” . In fact there is not one example ever of. A JV doing one deal where the only transaction is named after the much smaller of the 2 companies. Lol. What about the 4th Corp? BioAmber? What happens to “3 corps 2 countries”? Why authorize pwc to do what it has to do “in Canada , the US, and ELSEWHERE” if there was only 3 corps in 2 countries where there’s most obviously at least one other location referred to as “elsewhere” (st least one). If everything must be publicly disclosed and transparent then why not name the other country/countries? The problem with assuming your opinion is fact , is that if some of the things you said have already fallen apart ( examples above and 2 years of posts) then you’ve already lost the credibility to be so sure of anything else. Like I’ve stated repeatedly. The only FACT here is that we have different OPINIONS

[Real McCoy]

Short answer no it wouldn’t need another qualifier.

It would need another defined term and the notion of the Total Purchase Price of which the various pieces are each a subset. Thats how you define multiple facets of a Purchase Price in a legal document.

Speaking of things needed/unneeded. There is no reason to call the alleged only transaction “The Visolis Transaction” . In fact there is not one example ever of. A JV doing one deal where the only transaction is named after the much smaller of the 2 companies. Lol.

New topic I guess. They can call it whatever they want as long as they make what they want to say clear. In this case it looks like one organization was taking the lead, the transaction was named after them, and they other was asked to make sure they affirmed that they would perform as well in order for the JV's bid to be reliable if chosen.

What about the 4th Corp? BioAmber? What happens to “3 corps 2 countries”? Why authorize pwc to do what it has to do “in Canada , the US, and ELSEWHERE” if there was only 3 corps in 2 countries where there’s most obviously at least one other location referred to as “elsewhere” (st least one). If everything must be publicly disclosed and transparent then why not name the other country/countries?

For one, they did not expect this to be remotely controversial to be discussed later. If they had any reason to believe there could be any business of any kind down the line in another country, any document to effect control of a patent, tax holding or currency hedge, anything, then it makes sense to include this catch-all kind of comment. Are you saying that they used the extra term in order to make sure they were being fully truthful about another country being involved, but then they were not feeling truthful enough to mention that that also entailed a windfall changing the value of a share of this company from $0 to $4?

The problem with assuming your opinion is fact , is that if some of the things you said have already fallen apart ( examples above and 2 years of posts) then you’ve already lost the credibility to be so sure of anything else. Like I’ve stated repeatedly. The only FACT here is that we have different OPINIONS [/I]

I don't see anything falling apart in my prior post.