Replies to post #98809 on BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Real McCoy]

You have not. You have provided examples of the word in practical uses where a positive outcome is involved. But there does not exist a definition of the word that involves a required outcome. I then eliminated that argument permanently with the proven death sentence practical use examples all over the place.

I don't understand why you keep referring to the judge's requirement to use words so carefully that a nuance between two synonyms MUST mean the existence of a $500M windfall, but the same judge is not obligated to be actually forthcoming about $500M in value. Why do you keep doing that?

[trader59]

LOL!!!!

Yeah, I can see them now in the smoke filled room in the back...

"You big dummy, you used the word confirming instead of affirming. If you do that, we can be sued for fraud after the liquidation closes and we take possession of the assets, the proceedings get closed out with a pittance paid to the creditors, and then we swoop in with the other $540M to buy the carcass of the company... use affirming like we told you, it'd take a real wordsmith to see through that and it'll keep us out of trouble..."

LOL!!!!!

No, there was only 1 offer from the joint venture in the liquidation, it was for $4.34M, that was accepted, approved by the courts, transaction closed in October of 2018, and that figure appeared in EVERY court document as the total received. There isn't anything else that has or will happen and no further payment to the company or its shareholders. It is absurd to even suggest a joint venture would make 2 separate offers, one for $4.34M, the other for over 100X's that. That's pure fabrication, and everybody knows it.