Replies to post #100231 on BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Real McCoy]

Look, you have pointed out a real inconsistency. Generally, many of the items offered here ("affirming", "upfront", etc) I have found horrendously not compelling. Just nothing there. But this is a written statement referencing a share purchase. This has been directly refuted by all of the Monitor's reports, but it is still right there in writing.

Look at the motivation here. This letter is from the losing bidder, it references the share purchase in a conversation (nothing in writing EVER from PWC confirmed any share purchase), and it was made to make an argument. On the other side, the Monitor and judge are bound by a whole different level of duty of precision, and the secured creditors' motivation was their own money.

With LCY's attorney now writing letters asking to be left alone on the notion of a second transaction, the company's board and employees nowhere to be found, and delisted, which notion, the share purchase, or liquidation, is more consistent with the current state of things?

[trader59]

That losing bidder had ample opportunity to file an objection and dispute the outcome of the bidding process, but did not. Even if their bid was accepted, there'd have been no recovery for the shareholders, as their bid was $3.5M cash plus the possibility of another million if they were able to raise $20M in capital through a stock sale (and that was not BIOAQ stock, that was GFive stock). If they were unable to raise that capital and had to re-liquidate, they offered to split anything over $3.5M. They also offered to collect up the accounts receivable for a fee.

Setting that aside, why would the monitor tell this bidder the "truth" about a share purchase, and then turn around and lie to everyone else for the remainder of the proceedings, including the 2 federal judges and the secured creditors? That's absurd to even think.